Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply

Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> Thu, 18 December 2014 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <turners@ieca.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A8F1AC3D2 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:03:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.567
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 1MvZrsbm27E2 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway08.websitewelcome.com (gateway08.websitewelcome.com [69.56.170.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42941ABD3E for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:02:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gateway08.websitewelcome.com (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 4F4909A7840DA; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:02:03 -0600 (CST)
Received: from gator3286.hostgator.com (gator3286.hostgator.com [198.57.247.250]) by gateway08.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1AD9A78407B for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:02:03 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [96.231.218.201] (port=56216 helo=[192.168.1.7]) by gator3286.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <turners@ieca.com>) id 1Y1hGs-0007z8-AS; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:02:02 -0600
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
In-Reply-To: <548E7FDF.80801@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:01:58 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <02C6C7AC-9D7C-47AD-A0FB-8A116B5DD4D0@ieca.com>
References: <B04C70D5-6C5C-4962-8867-32F68AF74D47@ieca.com> <548E7FDF.80801@pi.nu>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator3286.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ieca.com
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 96.231.218.201
X-Exim-ID: 1Y1hGs-0007z8-AS
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([192.168.1.7]) [96.231.218.201]:56216
X-Source-Auth: sean.turner@ieca.com
X-Email-Count: 2
X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/lg9tRligosGQW9FV8BL82xJhJfE
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:03:00 -0000

Roger.  I’ll keep an eye out for a revision.  

spt

On Dec 15, 2014, at 01:29, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> Sean,
> 
> We had a "wrinkle" on this :( ! Two of the authors discovered (very
> late) something that needs to be addressed.
> 
> I asked the AD to send the ducment back to the working group for "more
> work". I hope it be a smooth process, and that we'll get the document
> timely back on track again.
> 
> Anyhow, I expect that the authors takes care of your comments during the
> "more work" process.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 2014-12-14 03:29, Sean Turner wrote:
>> Do not be alarmed.  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 with the intent
>> of improving security requirements and considerations in IETF drafts.
>> Comments not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews
>> during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
>> these comments just like any other last call comments.
>> 
>> Version: 06
>> Summary: Ready with some non-security/non-privacy nits.
>> 
>> Ping mechanisms always give me the heebie-jeebies [1]
>> because of the security concerns associated with them (i.e., DoS,
>> spoofing/hijacking/etc., and unauthorized disclosure).  This document
>> specifies an extension to the existing ECHO mechanism in RFC 4379
>> and it does nothing to address these concerns in fact it increases the
>> concerns wrt DoS. *BUT* it rightly points this increase exposure out in
>> the security considerations section.  It provides remediation techniques
>> similar to those specified in RFC 4379: rate limit and validate source
>> against access list.  This draft, unlike RFC 4379, does recommend that
>> operators wishing to not disclose their nodes blank the address out in
>> the TLV.  This draft also refers to RFC 4379 for additional security
>> considerations.
>> 
>> WARNING - questions and nits follow:
>> 
>> s3 - 1st paragraph: Relayed Echo Reply “replaces” Echo Reply - does this
>> mean you’re deprecating the use of “Echo Reply”?
>> 
>> s4.1: Is the outermost label allowed to be set to 255 to support the
>> “ping” mode or must it always be set to 1, 2, etc. to support “traceroute"
>> mode - as described in RFC 4379 s4.3?   I know s5 is just an example
>> but it really looks like this extension is just supposed to be for fault
>> isolation.
>> 
>> s4.1 - last paragraph: Does the next initiator put it’s address in the stack
>> before or after the previous initiator?  I assume it’s after, but I maybe
>> missed that part?  Would be good to state that explicitly.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> spt
>> 
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heebie-jeebies_(idiom)
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64