Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13

Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com> Thu, 01 March 2018 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <huaimo.chen@huawei.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 EE79F12DA16; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 18:37:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ewp2OM9XN2ya; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 18:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D162A127863; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 18:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 5912AB8D21BB; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 02:37:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 02:37:15 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.168]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.179]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 18:37:11 -0800
From: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com>
To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13
Thread-Index: AQHTsGF0bMS2tSZEukW0ApcMkK50nKO6bCJA
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 02:37:09 +0000
Message-ID: <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D463A54A8D@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <151980106388.5124.1750215397283002470@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <151980106388.5124.1750215397283002470@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.156.83]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/gxbDOo0xbRpl5UOXMYgxQPFUg_0>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 01 Mar 2018 02:37:19 -0000

Hi Joseph,

    Thank you very much for your time and comments.
    The specific relevant documents have been added. 

Best Regards,
Huaimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Salowey [mailto:joe@salowey.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 1:58 AM
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection.all@ietf.org
Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13

Reviewer: Joseph Salowey
Review result: Ready

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.

In general I felt that the document was a bit difficult to read and the issues raised in the Genart and RTG reviews should be addressed.

>From a security point of view I believe the document is ready, but I 
>have a
comment below that might improve the document.

I find the security considerations as reference to other documents a bit unsettling, however, based on my somewhat limited understanding of RSVP it think it is accurate in this case.  The problem I have with the security considerations as reference is that most implementors are probably are not going to follow the links to the other documents to find out what security
wisdom lies therein.   If the document pointed to specific considerations in
other documents that were particularly relevant to this document that would be an improvement.  I couldn't work my way back through the chain of references to something specific, but someone with a bit more RSVP domain knowledge may be able to make some specific recommendations.