Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-trill

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

My apologies for responding slowly, I was traveling.

If it is tolerable to people, I do not mind adding the two sentences
requested by Sam to the isis-trill draft.

Thanks,
Donald

PS: It appears to me that the same considerations apply to
draft-ietf-isis-ieee-aq.

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Sam Hartman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>
>    Erik> Adding just this sentence to draft-ietf-isis-trill (the code
>    Erik> point document) seems odd. Your comment is really a comment on
>    Erik> the security of IS-IS, and not specific to TRILL and unrelated
>    Erik> to the code points.
>
> I don't care much where the text goes.  I'm happy if you provide an rfc
> editor note for draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol if you like that
> approach better.  However, as I read draft-ietf-isis-trill, it defines
> the interface between TRILL and IS-IS.  In my mind, that's where the
> security consideration appears.  You're re-using a component that isn't
> up to our current standards--we know that; we're working on it in
> KARP. However in doing that, you need to document the security
> considerations for your protocol.  Since you have a document that
> specifically is the interface between your protocol and the component
> you are re-using,that seems like the best place to do the documentation
> work.
>
> however, in decreasing order of priority, I want to call out my concern
> that we need to be far more careful about what we expect in terms of
> security from future work we charter and that we should document the
> specific interactions between IS-IS and TRILL.  While I have expressed
> an opinion above on where I think that documentation should go, feel
> free to put it where you think is most correct.