IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] Secdir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03

Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.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 971FF12D5BA; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:34:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 YAqY62kOozeo; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40AEF12D5B9; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:34:36 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79d26d000006389-79-56e1319a249b
Received: from ESESSHC009.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.45]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F9.82.25481.A9131E65; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:34:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.131]) by ESESSHC009.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:34:33 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org>, "CCamp-chairs@ietf.org" <CCamp-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03
Thread-Index: AQHReX33vqcogrnZg0ykW8cVvnIfnJ9QIQSAgAI5wuA=
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:34:33 +0000
Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48162564BB@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <56DF3E1A.4010003@nostrum.com> <D304CA35.16E796%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D304CA35.16E796%zali@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48162564BBESESSMB301erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7ru4sw4dhBqenK1ss3bGJyWLvtbms FjP+TGS2uDankc3iw8KHLBavd3xld2DzmPJ7I6vHkiU/mTxm7XzCEsAcxWWTkpqTWZZapG+X wJUx9eIspoJpORVXH91kb2BsT+xi5OSQEDCR2LzrAROELSZx4d56NhBbSOAwo8SHj0VdjFxA 9hJGifkXpzN3MXJwsAlYSTw55AMSFxE4yiRx+FAbWLOwgLfEz6nPwJpFBHwkDp4+wgpSLwJU f6KXEcRkEVCVuHJUF6SCV8BX4uGSBjaQsBBQ59a9biBhTgFdiR93e8CGMArISkzYvYgRxGYW EJe49WQ+1JUCEkv2nGeGsEUlXj7+xwphK0q0P22Aqs+X6Pu+hw1ilaDEyZlPWCYwisxCMmoW krJZSMog4noSN6ZOYYOwtSWWLXzNDGHrSsz4d4gFWXwBI/sqRtHi1OKk3HQjI73Uoszk4uL8 PL281JJNjMAYPLjlt8EOxpfPHQ8xCnAwKvHwflj1IEyINbGsuDL3EKMEB7OSCO9ug4dhQrwp iZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxilOViUxHlZP10OExJITyxJzU5NLUgtgskycXBKNTC6dV/amzT9Woby htz3ywpSfPT9Nh2Yzf1v5ld92fj9FedY1/+wS9javub4mtxXv+K9Sg8avK5KkbeS6XuSLXhR 4/+S7QsFni3l7rWPCN44V5XX2OOx5Nec0Np/7TN93dasqBDoebQoyk2of7PR7ubvD2pX/n2/ 7U77CoG/5u8aOiJvPdoW9f+iEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAqqhRI70CAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/bsK2wVIMEhyBXo9oIrBRkHr24Nc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:44:00 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:34:50 -0000

Hi Zafar,

I would suggest a section similar to RFC7139 , as it's the reference for the OTN signal type sub-registry.
What about something like:

This document introduces no new security considerations to the existing GMPLS signaling protocols.  Refer to [RFC7139]for further details of the specific security measures.  Additionally, [RFC5920<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5920>] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane.

Robert, does this address your concern?

BR
Daniele


From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: mercoledì 9 marzo 2016 00:30
To: Robert Sparks; secdir@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Secdir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03

Hi Robert-

We can add a security section stating "no new consideration is required".

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com<mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>
Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:03 PM
To: "secdir@ietf.org<mailto:secdir@ietf.org>" <secdir@ietf.org<mailto:secdir@ietf.org>>, "iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>" <iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org>>
Subject: Secdir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03


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: Almost ready for publication as PS with process nit



This very short draft only changes the registration policy for an existing (sub)registry at IANA - adding "Specification Required" to the current "Standards Action" policy.

It introduces no new security considerations.



It has no security considerations section - the shepherd writeup asserts none is needed.

As far as I recall, that's not true. A short section explicitly saying there are no new considerations is required.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email