Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 November 2015 05:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
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 655211B406F; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:47:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 V3ymhQtqMuY4; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:47:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (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 1CC2A1B4068; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:47:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igbxm8 with SMTP id xm8so8581230igb.1; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:47:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oVTXJfWgmM8WkIDXX/+yAtFV1SRdIFJy0/7Ixvn+r7M=; b=hiJNgEs5IbzDGCByyiGCIlqEarO+GEKyqimqwPGj8mptp5+DJ/Di/YsPaxZEwYKZPO aTU7b0OVmovl2kQres6JNcE6ARTHOWVe0+2I5I4C4jl8IkFzGjNrpG7ADhrYhqcOBKTv vdwWxe+kKrSmayfe5ONlQFu/JDsP+GXtKrmnxDSBcY9ZcVG+gUOarxYM0W4V/nWUqvX2 k0cG0PnJY2nM4dfV5PAsbPOkwvnWNRB79i57db1cnY2OLophLaCi2UreZX21m3JBWsD/ cOq3OYkG1hI83L8FreZNN7ZoBSLS9FHPBwRg7BElqK2Ex0jVZPZXqXcu6TCEsnjBKc/I ZpiA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.107.104 with SMTP id hb8mr1453915igb.1.1447393632242; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.138.129 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:47:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AE924D3@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F12AE924D3@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:17:12 +0530
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HiWd1H2Fcz5TylA0BB4-MdXLZuw
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7BfBGMK4e-ST4xiqHT=7csUofu4L-WPC555i_itDhouA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10ca474cd5780524659744
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/wbPUtWUUIGQAPOwypO3Q8e-JWGY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 02:25:27 -0800
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects.all@tools.ietf.org>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "dhruv.dhody@huawei.com" <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, "pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03
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: <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: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 05:47:15 -0000

Hi Frank,

Thank you for your review and sorry for the delay in the reply [ Diwali
festivities in these neck of woods :) ]
Please see inline...

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Xialiang (Frank) <frank.xialiang@huawei.com
> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> 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 experimental ID specifies new subobjects for RSVP-TE and GMPLS
> extensions to RSVP-TE to include or exclude 4-Byte Autonomous System (AS)
> and Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area during path setup.
>
>
>
> The document appears in reasonably good shape.
>
> Based on good existing security works on the RSVP-TE and GMPLS, such as
> [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC4874] and [RFC5920], as well as only introducing
> some new subobjects for LSP path setup using the same process as before,
> this document does not introduce new risks in theory.
>
> There are still several open issues (TBDs) in the document that need to be
> completed before publication.
>
>
>
> Below a series of my own comments, questions for your consideration.
>
>
>
> Comment:
>
> One side effect from the misbehaviors of trusted LSR I would suggest you
> to consider:
>
> If the LSR includes the new defined subobjects with right AS-ID/IGP area
> id but still using the already existed Types, the legacy nodes will process
> its content wrongly, and vice versa. In this condition, the length filed
> checking is sometimes useful although not always;
>

​[Dhruv]: The already existing types are -
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-25
- There is no way to include IGP area with existing types
- There exist 2-Byte AS number type, RFC3209 say the length of sub-object
is fixed to 4 when Type is AS (32), this draft says the length is fixed 8
for the new subobject type for 4-Byte AS number. The fixed length takes
care of it? Do you see a need to add any other text?​



>
>
> Question:
>
> For the inter-domain scenarios, is it possible that there is not
> authentication and data protection mechanisms between the two boundary
> nodes? Furthermore, if the connection between these two nodes are not
> hop-by-hop, how to guarantee the data integrity and mutual trust?
>

​[Dhruv]: This analysis is done at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5920#section-8
Chairs, would you like to add anything else? ​



>
>
> Editorial changes:
>
> Section 6: the first sentence “*Security considerations for MPLS-TE and
> GMPLS signaling are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].*”, using the
> phrases like “MPLS-TE” and “GMPLS signaling” is not very accurate,
> suggesting to change to “*Security considerations for RSVP-TE and GMPLS
> signaling RSVP-TE extensions are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].* ”
>

​[Dhruv]: Ack.

Thank you for your review and comments.

Regards,
Dhruv
​



>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> B.R.
>
> Frank
>
>
>