[secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-02.txt

"Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 24 February 2014 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA251A0785; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:35:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zHH0pKT6D7L4; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B361A0784; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1WHjWA-0005cz-7q; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:35:34 -0700
Received: from [72.250.219.84] (helo=sylvester.rhmr.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1WHjW8-0001Lr-3s; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:35:34 -0700
Received: from sylvester.rhmr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu1) with ESMTP id s1O0ZRsJ014993; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:35:27 -0700
Received: (from hilarie@localhost) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id s1O0ZRJl014980; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:35:27 -0700
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:35:27 -0700
Message-Id: <201402240035.s1O0ZRJl014980@sylvester.rhmr.com>
From: "Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19BxKouGYizest/AWLqsSbk
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 72.250.219.84
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hilarie@purplestreak.com
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Combo: **;iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
X-Spam-Relay-Country:
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/UXAjlOIAsRSoLM7nla9sZjSLZmI
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-02.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Hilarie Orman <ho@alum.mit.edu>
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:35:37 -0000

Security review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-02.txt
MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
Operational Expectations of SDH, OTN and Ethernet Transport Network
Operators 

Do not be alarmed.  I have reviewed this document as part of the
security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and
WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

The abstract for this document states:
   This document describes alternate mechanisms to perform some of the
   sub-functions of MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) linear protection
   defined in RFC 6378, and also defines additional mechanisms.  The
   purpose of these alternate and additional mechanisms is to provide
   operator control and experience that more closely models the behavior
   of linear protection seen in other transport networks.

The security considerations are the timeworn statement that

   No specific security issue is raised in addition to those ones
   already documented in RFC 6378 [RFC6378]

In RFC 6378 we find:    
   MPLS networks make the assumption that it is very hard to inject
   traffic into a network and equally hard to cause traffic to be
   directed outside the network.  The control-plane protocols utilize
   hop-by-hop security and assume a "chain-of-trust" model such that
   end-to-end control-plane security is not used.  For more
   information on the generic aspects of MPLS security, see [RFC5920].

To my great astonishment I found that "RFC5920 Security Framework for
MPLS and GMPLS Networks" is an excellent document, and it is my
suggestion that the current draft reference it directly in section 13
"Security Considerations".

Barring any surprises in the extensive state diagrams, I otherwise am
inclined to accept the "no new issues" handwave.

Hilarie