Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05

"Zhangmingui (Martin)" <zhangmingui@huawei.com> Wed, 07 March 2018 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangmingui@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 9E333126B72; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:16:12 -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 bGQVYuDk5J5O; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:16:11 -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 12E7D124BE8; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:16:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 484CE87173E93; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:16:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:16:07 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 11:15:56 +0800
From: "Zhangmingui (Martin)" <zhangmingui@huawei.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
Thread-Index: AdOyXwuroB0yJVJhRMeJvvm4FEzIkQDCKukgABWI5oA=
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:15:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7AAFE7004@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F6E1D1@marathon> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F70C6B@marathon>
In-Reply-To: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0137F70C6B@marathon>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.146.93]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/o-pCNEA-v9JrHVGMwGWteDtZnqo>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
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: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 03:16:13 -0000

Hi Roman,

All changes you suggested in item (8) are fair. I've made these changes into the 07 version. Awaiting for uploading. 

Thanks,
Mingui

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Danyliw [mailto:rdd@cert.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 12:32 AM
> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname.all@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Secdir review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
> 
> Hi Donald and Mingui!
> 
> Thanks for the changes in -06.  Any thoughts on item (8)?
> 
> Roman
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roman Danyliw
> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 9:01 PM
> > To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-
> > nickname.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: Secdir review of
> > draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-05
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > (8) There appear to be a few instances of key protocol behavior not
> > using
> > RFC2119 language.  I'd suggest:
> >
> > Section 3.2.2, Global Distribution Tree, Page 6
> > (old) Also, this border RBridge needs to advertise the set of local
> > distribution trees by providing another set of nicknames
> > (new) Also, this border RBridge MUST advertise the set of local
> > distribution trees by providing another set of nicknames
> >
> > Section 3.2.2, Global Distribution Tree, Page 6
> > (old) If a border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root
> > and a local tree root, it has to acquire both a global tree root
> > nickname(s) and local tree root nickname(s)
> > (new) If a border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root
> > and a local tree root, it MUST acquire both a global tree root
> > nickname(s) and local tree root nickname(s)
> >
> > Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
> > (old) Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge needs to announce,
> > in its area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are
> > reachable from this border RBridge.
> > (new) Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge MUST announce, in
> > its area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are reachable
> > from this border RBridge.
> >
> > Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
> > (old) Also, a border RBridge needs to announce, in Level 2, the
> > ownership of all nicknames within its area. From listening to these
> > Level 2 announcements, border RBridges can figure out the nicknames used
> by other areas.
> > (new) Also, a border RBridge MUST announce, in Level 2, the ownership
> > of all nicknames within its area. From listening to these Level 2
> > announcements, border RBridges can figure out the nicknames used by other
> areas.
> >
> > Section 4.3, Nickname Announcements, Page 9
> > (old) To address this issue, border RBridges should make use of the
> > NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the
> > inclusive range of nicknames that are available or not for self
> > allocation by the Level 1 RBridges in that area.
> > (new) To address this issue, border RBridges SHOULD use the
> > NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the
> > inclusive range of nicknames that are available or not for self
> > allocation by the Level 1 RBridges in that area.
> >
> > Section 4.4, Capability Indication, Page 11
> > (old) If there are RBridges that do not understand the NickBlockFlags
> > APPsub-TLV, border RBridges of the area will also use the traditional
> > Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames
> > covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose
> > OK is 0.
> > (new) If there are RBridges that do not understand the NickBlockFlags
> > APPsub-TLV, border RBridges of the area MUST also use the traditional
> > Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames
> > covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose
> > OK is 0.
> >
> > Section 5, Mix with Aggregated nickname Areas, Page 11
> > (old) Usage of nickname space must be planed so that nicknames used in
> > any one unique nickname area and Level 2 are never used in any other
> > areas which includes unique nickname areas as well as aggregated nickname
> areas