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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

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) <[e-mail]
> 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
>
>
>