Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18

Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 24 July 2022 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
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 274E3C136323; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 23:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0udqtuNk_ROB; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 23:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-xa33.google.com (mail-vk1-xa33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B910C13630A; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 23:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-xa33.google.com with SMTP id a7so2397369vkl.0; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 23:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x4usnhJ4ldiB09IVl+BC5TMznUtfolV/bHHZcpLcaqE=; b=RjjxSNqYTEt0awb4krOHlyGDIqLkx/h5Y7sse8Ah+xuoJwB2pWyL8iRA8j8Oeh6v1C DQ/mPCbljhsJvqoZ2jcBtLi2m4XPGfZ1ZCfkySGLDuajK1VjPB2wipJlSQXFkoV6qDTB 8KS7FZJFZzJrMauhXQLRVQvds6ytoLOIeN6LQ9OiKoheBgekeoFdvs3HkVL8QzQEi98h 6FMPFphySimn1k4pFVi6iLCG25oJmPfA4+gm+pgBhsdfHwD31Qs5cncHpmWxYEHvqwdx 7Z0pYwc+SMhrVP1lSnZMAem/fvQ7OukwKo5ugFhZtZacvo3WqmGfHi9uPJG+FfEomE3N 6Tzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x4usnhJ4ldiB09IVl+BC5TMznUtfolV/bHHZcpLcaqE=; b=GiDMFJj4OT/CODbz/fiJbZyBsMblens5JxzsqRwA/9Ykh3gHob4d4IcVfZug9eVmD/ M+KTdtSz79lhZa1yCpfaasJiAHgu+4Cia1Etp29lBVpZZGwgFyh5OTQMwNYSXjHEH9Gt Qfk7btVbpirAKoLY0eKrdJmp0vXzGoVZ7sqCJMvzVWbDRjwuPB6er2qFTzNwhu9GhIqp q/optGRcOf46fTvpzuHhvlk25TES0fKryQNSZbk/20woYj7ATsnfiUeeKNNwnzIp76T8 rPjhbYt491x0pybLGNd7M78z8lVDOFgKHGRw+XSyGw+kk3sY4gpa5jEFL1/0RhNXniGA w0BQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/nLLgbitAZncfsuZYuzrbwdeiEcY6gWa+jEAewoPW/rIcvib+4 tFQt8c9qyeOjFSWPaslXnGIgDMJLDwKXWGs1xZH8XxV2vJQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1u1mScfT/fDIoT4TfM9HBLkg8f3Bww35z1LJpDVuvaunVt22E+yIskwr4vLVuKUd4cic/6v3kfvaVrWVMfzkQg=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2cc3:0:b0:375:cfd6:d8e3 with SMTP id s186-20020a1f2cc3000000b00375cfd6d8e3mr1757336vks.33.1658643901426; Sat, 23 Jul 2022 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <165815985911.41588.4687011809090979175@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAH6gdPynGzAoeag3K+4SKXrkCoK6fNMgMw4fcjYH_yj2_xvSvQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH6gdPynGzAoeag3K+4SKXrkCoK6fNMgMw4fcjYH_yj2_xvSvQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 11:54:50 +0530
Message-ID: <CAH6gdPzD1d1VUzKcB7dGQD9U_7WSosuYeKhNyoY7Oe37s5HfjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy.all@ietf.org, "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008dadc605e48720f7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Z5b0bgDefWuDEtDKiRGvJRsdsv8>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-18
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 06:25:04 -0000

Hi Vincent,

The draft update has just been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-19

Please let us know if it addresses your comments.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 9:44 PM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Vincent,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> All the sub-TLVs defined in this document are carried inside the Tunnel
> Encapsulation Attribute which is defined by RFC9012. It is expected that
> the reader is aware of that document and especially Sec 2 of RFC9012 which
> specifies the design of the TLVs/sub-TLVs of this attribute. That said, we
> will describe and clarify the units for the length field.
>
> We'll post an update with these changes once the submission tool reopens.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 9:27 PM Vincent Roca via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Vincent Roca
>> Review result: Ready
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Summary: Ready
>>
>> I have no comment regarding the security part. Most issues seem fairly
>> classic
>> when dealing with BGP peering and the Security Considerations section
>> reminds
>> it's the responsibility of the network operator to guarranty that traffic
>> is
>> restricted to trusted domain/nodes. I don't know the domain but it seems
>> reasonable.
>>
>> Otherwise, a minor comment.
>> Section 2.4.1: I suggest being a bit more informative when describing
>> Type and
>> Length fields (this is the first mention of the packet format): >   o
>> Type: 12
>> >   o  Length: 6.
>>
>> There's no explanation and no unit.
>> As I understand, 12 is a reserved value for a "Preference Sub-TLV", say
>> it, and
>> Length is 6 bytes long, encompassing the Flags, RESERVED, and Preference
>> fields, say that too (at least the 1st time).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>>