Re: [secdir] SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06

"Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <> Thu, 13 August 2015 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE021A902B; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3hXyyuIy_k3n; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED2D1A8F49; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=18274; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439488346; x=1440697946; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=1TE8hu8K1tuGXm7X3+KIqpf8l0XRrEo7dJnV05zRzpo=; b=QH2cuLZZn25lHDTgYK0TM1mStorXPHigroeMOdTBakWfX8UPjnQoJAbB Q6LUaHR6EX1kO5k8rw7t62x/Fva3jkxwQ3v7fIp5cjpoqY+AXrqgYRvPq kI+SQR5XKRmUTqRqiVSdkVW/pIQPR5T5XbUdWSmuz7vgniEkNOMC8Jt06 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,671,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="20280647"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2015 17:52:24 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7DHqOAQ014492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:52:24 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:52:23 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:52:23 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 12:52:23 -0500
From: "Deepak Kumar (dekumar)" <>
To: Alia Atlas <>, Donald Eastlake <>
Thread-Topic: SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:52:23 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1F2272DE1A90dekumarciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Tissa Senevirathne <>, The IESG <>, secdir <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:52:28 -0000

Hi Alia,

I will be able to take care of all comments  over weekend.


From: Alia Atlas <<>>
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM
To: "<>" <<>>
Cc: dekumar <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Tissa Senevirathne <<>>, The IESG <<>>, Yoav Nir <<>>, secdir <<>>
Subject: Re: SecDir Review for draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-06

Hi Deepak,

Are you planning on publishing an updated draft today?
I'd like to move the draft ahead to IESG Evaluation.


On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Donald Eastlake <<>> wrote:
HI Deepak,

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Deepak Kumar (dekumar)
<<>> wrote:
> Hi Yoav,
> Thanks for review and comments. Please advise if we need to fix the nits
> and comments and upload new version as I am not sure about procedure of
> fixing comments during last call.
> Tissa has moved out of Cisco and working in another Company, I don¹t have
> privy of his new contact so I will contact him to get new contact and
> update the document also.

I've added Tissa to the cc list above. I believe that for now he wants
to be listed with "Consultant" as his affiliation and with email
address <<>>.

The IETF LC ends the 13th, in a few days. I suggest that you update
the contact info for Tissa, spell out OAM, and update the
MODULE-IDENTITY, since those don't seem like they would be
controversial. For any changes to the Security Considerations text, I
suggest you post proposed text in this thread before editing it in.

Donald (Shepherd)
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270<tel:%2B1-508-333-2270> (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA<>

> Thanks,
> Deepak
> On 8/8/15, 2:18 PM, "Yoav Nir" <<>> 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.
>>TL;DR: The document is ready with nits.
>>The document contains a MIB for operations, administration, and
>>maintenance (OAM) of TRILL. As is common for such documents, 34 of its 45
>>pages is section 7 ("Definition of the TRILL OAM MIB module²). Being an
>>expert on neither TRILL nor MIBs I have mostly skipped that section.
>>Usually with MIB documents, the security considerations for the protocol
>>(several TRILL RFCs in this case) are in the protocol documents, while
>>the security considerations for SNMP are in the SNMP document (RFC 3410).
>>The MIB document only points data that is sensitive (in terms of privacy
>>or information leakage), and data which is dangerous in the sense that
>>falsified or modified data could lead to damage.
>>In this document the Security Considerations section does a good job of
>>explaining that modified data can lead to changes in routing and
>>potentially to denial of service. The second paragraph is a little
>>hand-wavy for my taste:
>>   There are number of management objects defined in this MIB module
>>   with a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-create. Such objects may be
>>   considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
>>What network environment? Why in some but not in others? The third
>>paragraph is similar:
>>   Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (objects with a MAC-
>>   ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or
>>   vulnerable in some network environments.
>>The section concludes with text that looks very familiar from other MIB
>>documents, basically saying that you should use SNMPv3 because it has
>>protections whereas earlier versions don¹t. It is also important to have
>>proper access control rules. One nit is that the section says that the
>>cryptographic mechanisms in SNMPv3 provide ³privacy². As of late we tend
>>to use that word for the protection of information about humans, not so
>>much about link status.
>>A few general nits:
>> - In most documents that I see, the content of sections 1-4 is in a
>>single section.
>> - OAM is not expanded before first use.
>> - The MODULE-IDENTITY has ³TBD² for ORGANIZATION and authors¹ names in
>>CONTACT-INFO. looking at a few recent MIB documents, the working group is
>>usually given as ORGANIZATION and its mailing list is given as contact