Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-isis-bfd-tlv-02

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 C72003A6ABD for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 F2flHpsLN+bp for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9983A6AB5 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJY7TUyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACfZHGoA4wmjh6FNgSECIcW
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,261,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="162973157"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2010 14:43:41 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6QEhfkq005410; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:43:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:43:41 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:43:40 -0700
Message-ID: <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB520B76DFE4@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c872f28a1b0d@[130.129.114.216]>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-isis-bfd-tlv-02
Thread-Index: AcssmqKwiivm4TsnTc2SKF0q73T+wgANdQ5Q
References: <p06240803c870ffec1816@[10.242.10.151]> <tslsk37ajxs.fsf@mit.edu> <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB520B76DF71@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com> <p06240808c872f28a1b0d@[130.129.114.216]>
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: "Stephen Kent" <kent@bbn.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2010 14:43:41.0514 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0CF7AA0:01CB2CD0]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:54:26 -0700
Cc: "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "Chris Hopps \(chopps\)" <chopps@cisco.com>, dward@juniper.com, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-isis-bfd-tlv-02
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:43:21 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Kent [mailto:kent@bbn.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:12 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: Sam Hartman; secdir@ietf.org; dward@juniper.com; Stewart Bryant
> (stbryant); Chris Hopps (chopps)
> Subject: RE: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-isis-bfd-tlv-02
> 
> At 12:55 AM -0700 7/26/10, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> >...
> >
> >The mechanism introduced by this draft is used to determine when/if
to
> >use BFD session state as a prerequisite to forming an IS-IS adjacency
> >and/or to trigger IS-IS adjacency state transitions. It does not make
> >any changes to the operation of BFD itself - which I think your
> wording
> >may unintentionally imply. How about:
> >
> >"The TLV defined within this document describes an addition to the
IS-
> IS
> >Hello protocol. Inappropriate use of this TLV could prevent an IS-IS
> >adjacency from forming or lead to failure to detect bidirectional
> >forwarding failures - each of which is a form of denial of service.
> >However, a party who can
> >manipulate the contents of this TLV is already in a position to
create
> >such a denial of service by disrupting IS-IS routing in other ways."
> >
> 
> That text is much better. I think it is also worth including a
> sentence, as you did later in your message, noting that the use of
> this new TLV in the IS-IS hello exchange is independent of the use of
> authentication for that exchange or for BFD.

OK - perhaps:

"The TLV defined within this document describes an addition to the IS-IS
Hello protocol. Inappropriate use of this TLV could prevent an IS-IS
adjacency from forming or lead to failure to detect bidirectional
forwarding failures - each of which is a form of denial of service.
However, a party who can manipulate the contents of this TLV is already
in a position to create such a denial of service by disrupting IS-IS
routing in other ways. Use of authentication by IS-IS and/or by BFD is
not altered by this document."

??

   Les

> 
> Steve