Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-03

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shawn,

A version -04 has been uploaded with these fixes.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]


On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Shawn M Emery <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 01/10/17 06:03 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>>
>> Hi Shawn,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. See below.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Shawn M Emery <[e-mail]>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> This draft updates the Appointed Forwarders mechanism (RFC 6439);
>>> which supports multiple TRILL switches that handle native traffic
>>> to and from end stations on a single link.
>>>
>>> The security considerations section does exist and states that this
>>> update does not change the security properties of the TRILL base
>>> protocol.  The section goes on to state that the Port-Shutdown message
>>> SHOULD be secured through the Tunnel Channel protocol (which is in draft
>>> state).  Was this intended to be a normative reference?
>>
>> That reference is out of date. draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel has
>> issued as RFC 7978. That should be updated and I agree that this
>> should be a normative reference.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>>>
>>> The section quickly
>>> finishes with a reference to Authentication TLVs as a way to secure
>>> E-LICS
>>> FS-LSPs traffic.  I'm not a TRILL expert and therefore find it difficult
>>> to
>>> distinguish between the usage of Tunnel Channels and Authentication TLVs
>>> for
>>> securing Port Shutdown messaging.  Could you please clarify?
>>
>> "Channel Tunnel", although left in the draft name for convenience, was
>> basically changed to RBridge Header Extension. This is a way to add a
>> layer of header to RBridge Channel messages (specified in RFC 7178) to
>> secure their content. The Authentication TLV is an IS-IS TLV and
>> including that TLV in an IS-IS PDU can be used to secure the content
>> of the PDU. Some text can be added to clarify this.
>
>
> Ah, I see.  Yes, clarifying text would be helpful for the nascent reader.
>
>>> General comments:
>>>
>>> None.
>>>
>>> Editorial comments:
>>>
>>> s/the need to "inhibition"/the need for "inhibition"/
>>> s/forarding/forwarding/
>>> s/two optimization/two optimizations/
>>> s/messages are build/messages are built/
>>
>> Thanks for spotting those. We'll fix them.
>
>
> No problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Shawn.
> --