[spring] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Brian Haberman" <[e-mail]>]

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a training review from the Suresh Krishnan (incoming INT
AD)

* Section 3.4

If the intent is to create a new RH type how will the interoperability or
backward compatibility be possible? Specifically because intermediate
nodes (that are segment routing hops) that encounter unknown RH types are
required to drop the packet and send an ICMPv6 Parameter Problem back.

* Security considerations

In general this document does not talk anything about the security issues
with IPv6 routing headers and how they would be avoided. e.g. The
following paper describes an attack.

   [CanSecWest07]  Biondi, P. and A. Ebalard, "IPv6 Routing Header
                   Security", CanSecWest Security Conference 2007,
                   April 2007.
                   http://www.secdev.org/conf/IPv6_RH_security-csw07.pdf

I think the security considerations are very light and need to be greatly
improved.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 2

This section talks about the Routing header defined in RFC2460 but does
not mention that the RH0 has been deprecated by RFC5095. Potentially
worth mentioning draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-00.