[secdir] brief comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-09

Sandra Murphy <sandra.murphy@sparta.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Sandra.Murphy@cobham.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD423A69DF for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.279
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BNnJeMqthgwL for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from M4.sparta.com (M4.sparta.com [157.185.61.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D143A6B21 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Beta5.sparta.com (beta5.sparta.com [157.185.63.21]) by M4.sparta.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id o3KFwMYW003864; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:58:22 -0500
Received: from nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com (nemo.columbia.sparta.com [157.185.80.75]) by Beta5.sparta.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o3KFwKo3010713; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:58:22 -0500
Received: from SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com ([157.185.248.12]) by nemo.columbia.ads.sparta.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:58:21 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:58:18 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Sandra Murphy <sandra.murphy@sparta.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, iesg@iesg.orm
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1004201145090.3436@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
X-X-Sender: sandy@nemo.columbia.sparta.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2010 15:58:21.0126 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CCC4660:01CAE0A2]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:05:20 -0700
Subject: [secdir] brief comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:58:33 -0000

This draft caught my eye and I would have loved to investigate it fully. 
However, this is one of those drafts that requires a whole lot of advanced 
knowledge, and lacking that a whole lot of background reading.  I was not 
able to do that.

This is an extension ot the PCEP to provide for point-to-multipoint LSPs. 
Yep, multicast.  PCEP is the Path Comuptation Element Protocol (the PCE 
computes LSPs on behalf of routers in an AS or inter-ASs).  OSPF and IS-IS 
have been enhanced to help in the PCE discovery process (also in carrying 
around info for traffic engineered LSPs.).

A complicated set of background: MPLS, PCEP, P2MP, OSPF, ISIS, RSVP, 
yada yada.

(Excuses, excuses.)

But I did notice one thing I wanted to comment on. PCEP requires use of 
TCP-MD5 with recognition of its failings, specifically mentioning that 
TCP-AO was not yet complete.

This document refers to the PCEP security analysis.  But as TCP-AO has now 
passed the IESG, should there be some recognition of that change?

This doc does not seem the proper place to change the PCEP recommendation, 
but a change in the MUST requirement in PCEP (RFC5440) seems to be 
something to consider somehow.

I expect that's a AD level discussion between the security ADs and the 
routing ADs.

--Sandy