Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02
Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org> Fri, 31 October 2014 12:10 UTC
Return-Path: <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931FF1A8A46; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.664
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 uFn2JVV5jBPr; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (www.gondrom.org [5.35.241.16]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE68D1A8A25; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 05:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.65.1.9] (unknown [202.82.119.17]) by lvps5-35-241-16.dedicated.hosteurope.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F61062E64; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:10:16 +0100 (CET)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gondrom.org; b=R6N3Du9p+PaCYRRNl7w01wS8/Q3jnGfw+BB+6i7+O8TiU9ilHOpTQ2zeF3y/nSLtmYc4JaUrzr8HId6wNMStPi1/kmqr2qHUv33gE/229Pb1rMj9mDZ0AlJ87atHazNzDXOHEsW1x38x1R7D0hwq6Bsh7JbN8sH8eNQ2Ih8gI8I=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type;
Message-ID: <54537C25.2010609@gondrom.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:10:13 +0800
From: Tobias Gondrom <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cpignata@cisco.com
References: <53E00686.7030909@gondrom.org> <54482C9B.6070703@gondrom.org> <4BAF9B31-0AEE-45F9-93EB-244ED28C119B@cisco.com> <5450630C.60603@gondrom.org> <173091B4-E02A-4B43-8FF1-225DF4AA5083@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <173091B4-E02A-4B43-8FF1-225DF4AA5083@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020507040903030200020705"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/pfA0ysx5HUTO5UouOQwnz7xkQrM
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:10:28 -0000
Thanks. Tobias On 29/10/14 22:45, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: > Tobias, > >> On Oct 28, 2014, at 11:46 PM, Tobias Gondrom >> <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org <mailto:tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>> wrote: >> >> Carlos, >> >> thanks for your reply. >> One note inline. >> >> On 29/10/14 01:49, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: >>> Tobias, >>> >>> Many thanks for your review, and apologies for a delayed response. >>> Please see inline. >>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 6:15 PM, Tobias Gondrom >>>> <tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org <mailto:tobias.gondrom@gondrom.org>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> The draft is informational and identifies and analyses gaps that >>>> must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and >>>> applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. >>>> >>>> The document appears ready for publication. >>> Thanks! >>> >>>> The security considerations section (section 8) only states that >>>> changing the address family used for MPLS network operation does >>>> not fundamentally alter the security considerations of the existing >>>> protocol. Which is basically correct. It could have been >>>> interesting to look at the gaps analysis from a security >>>> perspective and see which of the MPLS IPv6-only gaps has security >>>> implications that need to be addressed. I.e. which gaps are >>>> security related. However, that is not essential. >>>> >>> Ack. >>> >>>> Comment: >>>> 1. Abstract and Section 1: >>>> the sentence "This document is not intended to highlight a >>>> particular vendor's implementation (or lack thereof)" sounds odd. >>>> Is there a WG discussion background or why is this document >>>> speaking of one "particular vendor's implementation”? >>> We just wanted to proactively clarify that this gap analysis is one >>> on specifications and not in implementations. The important part of >>> that sentence is what follows: “, but rather to focus on gaps in the >>> standards defining the MPLS suite." >> >> I fully understand and saw the following sentence. >> Just to explain further why I felt the sentence is odd: >> Actually the wording "a particular" might give a strange impression. >> It might just be me being paranoid or overly curious, but if I read a >> document explicitly denies something, it makes me curious as to why >> it does so and whether there was an according aspect behind it. >> Otherwise, why would a document explicitly deny something. ;-) >> E.g. if the document speaks about "not intended to highlight a >> particular vendor's implementation" it gives the feeling as if it >> might have started as looking at one particular vendor. >> >> If you like to clarify the message as you described in your answer, >> you might want to rephrase by removing the "a" before "particular" or >> phrase it in a positive way as like ".... is about specifications and >> not about particular vendor implementations..." >> >> Just a thought. >> > > I agree with you, it’s a good thought. We can turn around in a > positive way, and remove the “a”, like this: > > This document is intended to focus on gaps in > the standards defining the MPLS suite, and not to > highlight particular vendor implementations (or lack thereof) in the > context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality. > > Thanks, > > Carlos. > >> Best, Tobias >> >> >>> >>>> Nits: >>>> - section 3.3.1.1. EVPN >>>> formating: do you want to add one line at the end of the section: >>>> "Gap: Minor…. >>>> “ >>>> >>> Good catch — fixed. >> Thanks. >>> >>> >>>> I did not find anything else in my review. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Carlos. >>> >>>> Thank you and best regards. >>>> >>>> Tobias >
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-proto… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-p… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-p… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-p… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-p… Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-forces-p… Jamal Hadi Salim
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-on… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv… Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv… Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv… Tobias Gondrom