Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08

Anton Smirnov <> Wed, 18 January 2017 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB899129504; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:22:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rDWdhXFvIikt; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:22:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45153129416; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:22:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5732; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484778125; x=1485987725; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=fZu3IwRnPxufOTdyPpa4ttgNn7/doMeknwzc71Vw+0g=; b=aNGavKPjDRqdSz9kvRmCDRvxwX94ktzXgA5PKQISC8BGeDIz0rrof6Kr ye25tG6hRvtquFdXCJpv3nUo+WCk2Nbqfp/4IZGkcYxpIxMg6ArSj8NzT P5Tp2Zg8lpglh3wA2nRzwYCbw9TkP06Y+jqXNzf7eWLr2vmNyIFCms+pt w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,250,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="651760105"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Jan 2017 22:22:03 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0IMM2S2001589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:22:03 GMT
To: Radia Perlman <>, "" <>, The IESG <>,
References: <>
From: Anton Smirnov <>
Organization: Cisco Systems
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:22:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5125F32A8E1A176DF262D21B"
X-Authenticated-User: asmirnov
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:22:07 -0000

    Hello Radia,

    authors of the draft has just published -09 revision. As part of 
editorial changes we expanded/rearranged Introduction text, so now it 
hopefully better explains positioning of DDT in the whole LISP solution 
and refers to relevant previous RFCs.


On Friday 14 October 2016 08:07, Radia Perlman wrote:
> 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.
> This document describes a hierarchical distributed database that helps 
> a router find a mapping between what LISP calls an "endpoint 
> identifier" and "routing locator".
> I have not been following LISP, and am not completely convinced that 
> it solves a problem that can't be solved in other ways, but 
> hierarchical distributed databases do seem like the right solution for 
> lots of problems (like DNS).
> I do not recommend trying to dive into LISP starting with this 
> document.  Alia Atlas helpfully pointed me at the document "An 
> architectural Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol".  It 
> would have been nice if this document referenced it, though it's not 
> an's an internet draft.
> Anyway, from a security point of view, it seems fine, mostly because 
> it's pretty much copied all the security mechanisms from DNSSEC. I do 
> wonder why a whole separate infrastructure would be necessary, and why 
> this information couldn't simply be in DNS.
> Radia