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 > > >
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te… Xialiang (Frank)
- [secdir] 答复: secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsv… Xialiang (Frank)
- [secdir] 答复: secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsv… Xialiang (Frank)
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsv… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-teas-rsv… Dhruv Dhody