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

Donald Eastlake <> Sun, 19 December 2010 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAB93A6870; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:15:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.154
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6gy5eUz5IDD; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:15:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8C73A6866; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:15:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so2182647wyf.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:17:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0DxuJl7/2JjuG+i4bXEM5ULhXwpvvAK+f3LdomLTADU=; b=bB8JNYlUA0ivFTVggVYQii3LTVzVQ9Ptvbe4mBricrT9xyfFR6LPdFbBsg3E6caXZs BrhH8B9UP2olQAZ51k+DJnZFbqH9xi4dCXNB/kRyhhK5ORbeDoeqhcnqjuJCvPkxErIP BATfrpLpeCxYUiv86NUk82FVloldmyj2CpnfA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xIyNwRP38vi6KfvlNUkwIu0Ayv9fJf2MiRBcA1BR8x9DOLVoFC/1GS3OA4oMz80WIx O4wK6uLutBTNn93jKyDduHGPhjne5skLLs8Ahj4FcVrGne1LYToHy13VrdY15SglF3Pf K+CQI4t+GvUwjB54EbhB1oU8lP+o0+4iVS5VI=
Received: by with SMTP id i18mr2037827wbt.50.1292782627449; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:17:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 19 Dec 2010 10:16:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:16:47 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Sam Hartman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Erik Nordmark <>,,,
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-trill
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:15:18 -0000

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.


PS: It appears to me that the same considerations apply to

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Sam Hartman <> wrote:
>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Nordmark <> 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.