[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-07

Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com> Wed, 19 September 2018 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB06130F7E for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOpxwPIwUQns for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x244.google.com (mail-lj1-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D30126CC7 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x244.google.com with SMTP id p10-v6so4031767ljg.2 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r8vTREydff/DtTKEur2mbvNEmTM35HK22fBBvipa5Ac=; b=X1s/MPfVWxSnBUDDiD16DUwV7Gd/FbpUSNHltIDhwJvuV1NxQxplHxzFRwEndyf6KT I6CqhTm/ImBXryvIwMFQbed5zR9nZuaZIwPzeV2Hy8I3BZo4Y3u0taRxZYhsEiLllm+C yUEGTHllyU1z9pMngHiZT3RtXiwUgateJ7rDj7KCjsAHENmSl+byiFogSWlun4pZiI/n rrB97lXo0j72lTpuAEQxnckax9lzIWQxy26GiIU/ETXJKtqibrn6HAxQS5w7UhhHC1x3 yKufBVgvFpQ/tloqHYejnXGOMfvObWrW/XPeT9rpBVhNLxAqacVPqhdZf1g5f0Rvo9fr WKKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r8vTREydff/DtTKEur2mbvNEmTM35HK22fBBvipa5Ac=; b=MNt8z08apaK1921W8elRnAiQYoOs0q6FcA1Tx/EpwLKxQAYPuthsQlnLKwQ6ucQhJB 1NGCH8XTQT+G5fEwXn33T1U95WLPJKBiMTAzKpfBvrPNtONQyJkDxnzD+1PVX+z/w8zr Ruv7zLtioHtVYuvHvU9elyl3lWVs3LsyjaDhBAIVHq7RlsNzc0I09TdDAmHVR30NTi4S 2grcCQBWmTjhuUdMX3jZn3qzsGWbux8VORUibKqMd35MioOweIoij5JmZ0ZmQl5MM62C B606D2XUiJT48V1Y0ie6QebTHD+X6dc3sWeU8FDMIpTvZO4mP4D6FJ3tfuRl6GdVw2CQ 3dbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51Bjt8Zah/rGpHGvT0sXo7wC3yClX143k+cq7gWczzD8hd7emtf9 sqJBaPjXe0sZjafYNX21HdmkZIQSfcK1xCoPZ4/MwSM7
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZSGWWw1Zha05osRA6W1gz4N5jM++dPmaTOrhsZlNoP39loBGTZ4mPs7+4/XkqqcCOo6jT4zy20CAgoR5Lxoes=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9791:: with SMTP id y17-v6mr20689888lji.41.1537340626486; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 01:03:35 -0600
Message-ID: <CAChzXmbZaRmr5KqG33v_Oq=nxGtKZhkTxYLUg_JnJhKHrLOwiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0ca7805763401db"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/uC3NIGjOKTynsFa0FFwGueC1GcA>
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 19 Sep 2018 07:03:52 -0000

Reviewer: Shawn M. Emery
Review result: Ready with numerous nits

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 draft specifies new Information Elements (IEs) in order to support BGP
information for the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol.

The security considerations section does exist and states that the draft
just defines
new IEs and does not introduce any new security considerations.  The
section then
goes on to state that the same security issues that apply to the IPFIX
protocol and
the corresponding Information Model applies to this specification.  I agree
with these

General comments:


Editorial comments:




s/mediator needs/the mediator needs/

s/Mediator is/The mediator is/

s/figure up/determine/g



s/Please refer/Please refer to/g

s/originated from AS A and destinated/originating from AS A and destined/

s/becuse it will cause the congestion/because it will cause congestion/


s/source IP and destination IP/source and destination IP address/g

s/both the source IP and the destination IP related/relating to both
the source and destination IP addresses/

s/length one IPFIX/length of one IPFIX/

s/to the information about the networks in the field/to information
about networks in the field/


configure export policy of BGP communities on the exporter to limit
the BGP communities to be exported, so as to only export some specific
communities,or not to export some specific communities.


configure the export policy of BGP communities to limit the BGP
communities by including or excluding specific communities.

s/The detailed mechanism is out of the scope of this document./The
details of increasing IPFIX message length is out of scope for this

s/refer Appendix A/refer to Appendix A/

s/source or destination IP/source or destination IP address/