Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-trill-irb-13

Donald Eastlake <> Wed, 29 June 2016 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD3612D770 for <>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U2ey7JzqBdkw for <>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A61412D575 for <>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ru5so7479223obc.1 for <>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=71zkHOUA7nhGqpJGGYwv6jR067rlY8IEyMGvmMsvfhI=; b=x6mj9vXBODagxhDRCYNfcLhIFyBcc79GS2vkZke7zMzfz6kdonxcX4nTAxCt1SiduQ GhadHYDequrBdAM96YdmX49a+/eTy9pEK/s7/xMqp1l8k2mUW4/gEopc+upR1igY76Us VZnCycM8sPlBR61WzUX3kn+Kqn8O/XzvIoVaV/qvk/Z54V8yxnO6UiOkEap1gkhjK/zB BkqlUhP/kdkFEF1AlEpCRMfs1/ppHB6LQ7LZ6O5iviwt5xqQVHi8EvIJ4zVorz4g/wuA MIQwL/S+0zJDGRqJWx1qSxJa6nEhmaID/iHYKYjHXKU19nJoaSFXTOGJ0/B+1PhbLXqi AMaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=71zkHOUA7nhGqpJGGYwv6jR067rlY8IEyMGvmMsvfhI=; b=lebfxPuLnUDxtSTbp3K7mxVKq4LPj1wzk5qD4CdCyaTy3W6SsYYgEL43149KjUWYl9 PVf4joULsmlIfiqAZ+OBQKwRCkmYGxXkujT7iI5B6O6aoBVSDJLzmHHBFJhU6X765Avl vdQDqfIJNZxVa9e2aVBvQ0mnBQsbZcgV6kCssrUKlw4CflK2gtlVmiyib6xMJNQP59Db 7BGktAUR7s4fLD+K5WKakmi4r7F53tBSMQZMd+zEzy3BOuiKnATEyzGooMsN++PRn4ZO SxQ2RuI/dA3+8CepAXKfCbxAEOPb5TmipOnVtgyEqxlwWRhKl7I1cu9W05KUQHKUIqXD hB/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tI5BPNbSEBPukVvx9hC9cnH6QfjOGAuIsP4+5/GCAulUkdqoS0uJz6H3apTZYlFAhi1/VIBFDXiDFbS8w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z90mr4287186ota.124.1467168985807; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:56:11 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Shawn M Emery <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-trill-irb-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 02:56:28 -0000

Hi Shawan,

Thanks for our comments.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:05 AM, Shawn M Emery <> wrote:
> 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.
> This draft specifies layer 3 (inter-subnet) gateway messaging of the
> TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol.
> The security considerations section does exist and refers to Intermediate
> System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) authentication (RFC 5310) for securing
> information advertised by Routing Bridges.  For generic TRILL security the
> draft refers to RFC 6325.  For sensitive data, it prescribes end-to-end
> security, but does not reference or provide details on how this is done in
> a layer 3 deployment.

Would you think it helpful if it gave IPsec and/or TLS as examples of
protocols that might be used for end-to-end security?

> General comments:
> None.
> Editorial comments:
> Does TRILL and FGL need to be expanded in the Abstract and Introduction
> section, respectively?
> I think it would be helpful to describe the "Inner.VLAN" syntax used
> throughout the document.

The payload of a TRILL Data packet looks like an Ethernet frame with a
VLAN tag which is the inner.VLAN. This could be added to the
definitions in Section 2.

> s/that belong to same/that belong to the same/


> s/VLANs in entire/VLANs in the entire/


> s/optimal pair-wise forwarding path/optimal pair-wise forwarding paths/

I don't see that in version -13.

> s/check the Inner.MacDA/checks the Inner.MacDA/


> s/tenant gateway MAC change/tenant gateway MAC changes,/


> s/Zhenbin Li, Zhibo Hu./Zhenbin Li, and Zhibo Hu./


 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA

> Shawn.
> --