Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Tue, 06 March 2018 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1FC129C53; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:31:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 YSftGoItpgx4; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:31:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 194B712711D; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:31:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w26GVnr1020738; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:31:49 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu w26GVnr1020738
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1520353909; bh=b/GZlp247jclciiaDjw1d2S4X0BzFoREp3fUiaJShoc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dUXMBmg32SSds2yG/4Y0Gqn+8pPaRsbpFm0TaHNOPkLJjtae9Ug4UBR7lztyN01oK qSzHW76hRa0FsJztl3kY9papg0Bu8NOpw9a+w3ewYr9r+drfWNzwInDY2FQIyZYnlh SekhlHLeK1S+3QjvdNbQ2V0iDxEHq6mFvpYJIMmY=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w26GVknp017107; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:31:46 -0500
Received: from MARATHON.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.250]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:31:45 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
Thread-Index: AdOyXwuroB0yJVJhRMeJvvm4FEzIkQDCKukg
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:31:45 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F70C6B@marathon>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F6E1D1@marathon>
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F6E1D1@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/X66T2HcZ6WrzpvBaUTlQ6kw8jTo>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:31:57 -0000

Hi Donald and Mingui!

Thanks for the changes in -06.  Any thoughts on item (8)?

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Danyliw
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 9:01 PM
> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-
> nickname.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
 
[snip]

> (8) There appear to be a few instances of key protocol behavior not using
> RFC2119 language.  I'd suggest:
> 
> Section 3.2.2, Global Distribution Tree, Page 6
> (old) Also, this border RBridge needs to advertise the set of local distribution
> trees by providing another set of nicknames
> (new) Also, this border RBridge MUST advertise the set of local distribution
> trees by providing another set of nicknames
> 
> Section 3.2.2, Global Distribution Tree, Page 6
> (old) If a border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root and a
> local tree root, it has to acquire both a global tree root nickname(s) and local
> tree root nickname(s)
> (new) If a border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root and a
> local tree root, it MUST acquire both a global tree root nickname(s) and local
> tree root nickname(s)
> 
> Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
> (old) Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge needs to announce, in its
> area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are reachable from this
> border RBridge.
> (new) Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge MUST announce, in its
> area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are reachable from this
> border RBridge.
> 
> Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
> (old) Also, a border RBridge needs to announce, in Level 2, the ownership of
> all nicknames within its area. From listening to these Level 2 announcements,
> border RBridges can figure out the nicknames used by other areas.
> (new) Also, a border RBridge MUST announce, in Level 2, the ownership of all
> nicknames within its area. From listening to these Level 2 announcements,
> border RBridges can figure out the nicknames used by other areas.
> 
> Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
> (old) To address this issue, border RBridges should make use of the
> NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the inclusive
> range of nicknames that are available or not for self allocation by the Level 1
> RBridges in that area.
> (new) To address this issue, border RBridges SHOULD use the NickBlockFlags
> APPsub-TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the inclusive range of
> nicknames that are available or not for self allocation by the Level 1 RBridges
> in that area.
> 
> Section 4.4, Capability Indication, Page 11
> (old) If there are RBridges that do not understand the NickBlockFlags
> APPsub-TLV, border RBridges of the area will also use the traditional
> Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames
> covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose OK
> is 0.
> (new) If there are RBridges that do not understand the NickBlockFlags
> APPsub-TLV, border RBridges of the area MUST also use the traditional
> Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames
> covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose OK
> is 0.
> 
> Section 5, Mix with Aggregated nickname Areas, Page 11
> (old) Usage of nickname space must be planed so that nicknames used in any
> one unique nickname area and Level 2 are never used in any other areas
> which includes unique nickname areas as well as aggregated nickname areas.
> (new) Usage of nickname space MUST be planed so that nicknames used in
> any one unique nickname area and Level 2 are never used in any other areas
> which includes unique nickname areas as well as aggregated nickname areas.
> 
> Section 5, Mix with Aggregated nickname Areas, Page 11
> (old) Border RBridges of an aggregated area need to announce nicknames
> heard from Level 2 into their area like just like an unique nickname border
> RBridge.
> (new) Border RBridges of an aggregated area MUST announce nicknames
> heard from Level 2 into their area like just like an unique nickname border
> RBridge.
> 
> Regards,
> Roman