Re: [secdir] SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06

Donald Eastlake <> Mon, 10 August 2015 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D36721B3AEA; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 051Sp5A1YwJb; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8E01B3AE9; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbop1 with SMTP id op1so130542754obb.2; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:19:53 -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:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VSKUwTAQZK2I0twtizlfkXG2jnZUEXcvahGyM4WeqGk=; b=DUBj5mu8lHpPjUDpzJJP4BPAlG/YT4c2oeg0I6uOmqmHnsDQMa8Bhjz6JzZjTioqwG 4wp+76yeAUChhPM3Q3Hc28vLLnljF45xwPc2sFrOLvnTbT3vDiErZBQpbI6phvipLbJl 3k8kz/DlTTQEQKoLDQRYF5/cijOGic694CCk2xvWaNp8EuhFPXQo2uHR7jhiSFvUpK9W 2Q/cHJhMQhINDXQ+pb5AsD045XuQUbwtRX08qq7teW1a7YDV00jW6HpXOFpLR2b1nDO6 ilPYrqHeo7jZEEIUsasKzK/lD+pDytCtiwqbVEMkyGZ6X+zKGVVsiFU2M3rQPj36LFao sjew==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x5mr20316540oec.80.1439230792925; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:19:38 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Tissa Senevirathne <>, The IESG <>, secdir <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:19:55 -0000

HI Deepak,

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
<> wrote:
> Hi Yoav,
> Thanks for review and comments. Please advise if we need to fix the nits
> and comments and upload new version as I am not sure about procedure of
> fixing comments during last call.
> Tissa has moved out of Cisco and working in another Company, I don¹t have
> privy of his new contact so I will contact him to get new contact and
> update the document also.

I've added Tissa to the cc list above. I believe that for now he wants
to be listed with "Consultant" as his affiliation and with email
address <>.

The IETF LC ends the 13th, in a few days. I suggest that you update
the contact info for Tissa, spell out OAM, and update the
MODULE-IDENTITY, since those don't seem like they would be
controversial. For any changes to the Security Considerations text, I
suggest you post proposed text in this thread before editing it in.

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

> Thanks,
> Deepak
> On 8/8/15, 2:18 PM, "Yoav Nir" <> 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.
>>TL;DR: The document is ready with nits.
>>The document contains a MIB for operations, administration, and
>>maintenance (OAM) of TRILL. As is common for such documents, 34 of its 45
>>pages is section 7 ("Definition of the TRILL OAM MIB module²). Being an
>>expert on neither TRILL nor MIBs I have mostly skipped that section.
>>Usually with MIB documents, the security considerations for the protocol
>>(several TRILL RFCs in this case) are in the protocol documents, while
>>the security considerations for SNMP are in the SNMP document (RFC 3410).
>>The MIB document only points data that is sensitive (in terms of privacy
>>or information leakage), and data which is dangerous in the sense that
>>falsified or modified data could lead to damage.
>>In this document the Security Considerations section does a good job of
>>explaining that modified data can lead to changes in routing and
>>potentially to denial of service. The second paragraph is a little
>>hand-wavy for my taste:
>>   There are number of management objects defined in this MIB module
>>   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-create. Such objects may be
>>   considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
>>What network environment? Why in some but not in others? The third
>>paragraph is similar:
>>   Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (objects with a MAC-
>>   ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
>>   vulnerable in some network environments.
>>The section concludes with text that looks very familiar from other MIB
>>documents, basically saying that you should use SNMPv3 because it has
>>protections whereas earlier versions don¹t. It is also important to have
>>proper access control rules. One nit is that the section says that the
>>cryptographic mechanisms in SNMPv3 provide ³privacy². As of late we tend
>>to use that word for the protection of information about humans, not so
>>much about link status.
>>A few general nits:
>> - In most documents that I see, the content of sections 1-4 is in a
>>single section.
>> - OAM is not expanded before first use.
>> - The MODULE-IDENTITY has ³TBD² for ORGANIZATION and authors¹ names in
>>CONTACT-INFO. looking at a few recent MIB documents, the working group is
>>usually given as ORGANIZATION and its mailing list is given as contact