Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09

"Adrian Farrel" <> Sun, 18 January 2015 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082771ACDC6; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:18:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QWenuVoH4VJX; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:18:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8901ACD73; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:18:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0IIIH1T001709; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:18:17 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0IIIF61001700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:18:16 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Catherine Meadows'" <>, <>, <>, <>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:18:15 -0000
Message-ID: <00cd01d0334b$21531080$63f93180$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CE_01D0334B.21553360"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdAydxp23s1ZdmfGSdynkv0Qges2oQA03Vfw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.513-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.513-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkCzdvUwRugvBa8+ihL49RByGbJMFqqIm9yo+b+yOP0oGFiN xVLlNmEJ5Lrq5GvXDdumB9SRxa/C5/DZOKmFLlvI/O70vD0Lt8Bm43Ht6SePHrDpEoP54K7OJ6h vUW0aekQaPfPDdbx4Lyj0q+S3oHr5/SHWB8mv3EGQTsyupo9izSlayzmQ9QV0Z5yuplze9psDU2 Y76gUbDskE8KgAEcqnNzIunSJO7CZzQU+u3L25OfSG/+sPtZVkIcCiCHZJTlfNQVzhfYY5srppS wuYPeB72zNSZa9o4CQktVCwRQiA4xiQc5OixN2zox5cBdU3pAf+paX6bXuNYcXt25YNeIUSM5II ZqvQNz5zmshRjvs1rUmlX2scVfeP7a7m7fE5C+HBtFDYGmaWKrRfRjDbtW6i5DjmdW0+qbGuwVT xTDkELrK2YHb/kidP/PEgL0tqyq50bnu2kHqixLMsPmSZxbpkE7JInT4wddoTjfkO3pb+WD0msI gSyun3H/Z71HJDNaFacyhB9L1arxJ3qw6ad/ljABhihvAhvAJIeNYTP8OmTPk3SjZMcZFkUlBh+ kbitM8/DUc/B6QpkmRGSnUqeCO9OQRl+99vaMkMH4SsGvRsA1qvZZ9/gpIhj2iyfwmt0k9o4tOB Mzo2OOvcLcwP4DFd6uAmoYaXRSDr0sYJGIQqWkHrI6vFzzG7l2F9+KxZd8cL/50zj0KL7BY+750 9sPX7ZLNHiJlyaWEtY3smclWYCYIiDu0n/+6x2MMmxTWvrZv8Xh935PYSDpd9j+WYn72G89EK+x ictMteLYq/LangxG5zP/FSQ4TNuwz3k5k2QyCeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPB9j2Gwz TE3vbyah9aCYUCHVxVyJLA+Rp5XYF+FL+qKPbTNasAJng86tKRxSNDYENnbWGWBiiDqeSoyD/np HYCbm/6zSQZMJ29UD+b1U+lvwxUmBnLsAUB0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09
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: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:18:25 -0000

Further tweak to tools address to get it delivered!
From: Adrian Farrel [] 
Sent: 17 January 2015 17:01
To: 'Catherine Meadows'; ''org'; ''org';
Subject: RE: secdir review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-09
Thanks Cathy,
[Note tweak to subject line to capture draft name]
From: iesg [] On Behalf Of Catherine Meadows
Sent: 16 January 2015 22:32
Cc: Catherine Meadows
Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-12vpn-pbb-evpn-09
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 describes a method for integrating Ethernet Provider Backbone Bridge
(PBB) with Ethernet VPN (EVPN) to
improve the delivery of MAC addresses, in particular with respect to
I don't see any security concerns with this draft, but I do have some comments
on the Security Considerations section.
It is very short, and all it says that the security considerations in the EVPN
draft apply directly to this draft. I assume that
it is also the case that this draft introduces no new security considerations.
If so, you should say so, and you should
also say why.  Also, I was wondering if the mechanisms introduced in this draft,
by introducing a greater degree of organization
in the delivery of MAC addresses, makes it easier to detect duplicated MACs,
which were mentioned as a security risk in the
Security Considerations of the EVPN draft.  If this is the case, it would be a
good thing to mention here.
I'd consider the draft somewhere between ready with nits and ready with issues.
I don't see any real security issues
here, just a Security Considerations section that needs to be expanded a little,
but this seems to be a little more than what the
secdir guidelines would call a nit.
Cathy Meadows
Catherine Meadows
Naval Research Laboratory
Code 5543
4555 Overlook Ave., S.W.
Washington DC, 20375
phone: 202-767-3490
fax: 202-404-7942