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

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 22:11:09 -0700

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?  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?

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/

Shawn.
--

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:03:58 -0500

Hi Shawn,

Thanks for your comments. See below.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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That reference is out of date.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.

>                                                                                           The section quickly

"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.

> s/messages are build/messages are built/

Thanks for spotting those. We'll fix them.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

> Shawn.
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

---

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 22:22:40 -0700

> should be a normative reference.

Thanks.

> of the PDU. Some text can be added to clarify this.

Ah, I see.  Yes, clarifying text would be helpful for the nascent reader.

> Thanks for spotting those. We'll fix them.

No problem.

Regards,

Shawn.
--

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:56:22 -0500

Hi Shawn,

A version -04 has been uploaded with these fixes.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:24:48 -0700

> A version -04 has been uploaded with these fixes.

I have just one suggested update, provided that the update is an 
accurate statement:

OLD:
As such, they are securable through the addition to those PDUs 
Authentication TLVs [RFC5310] in the same way as Hellos or other IS-IS PDUs.

NEW:
Therefore, they are securable through the addition of Authentication 
TLVs [RFC5310] in the same way as Hellos or other IS-IS PDUs.

and one editorial:

s/It this case/In this case/

The rest of the changes looks good to me.

Thanks,

Shawn.
-- 
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Shawn M Emery<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Shawn M Emery<[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:54:48 -0500

Hi Shawn,

Those fixed look good to me. We should be able to implement them.

Thanks,
Donald

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I have just one suggested update, provided that the update is an accurate
> statement:
>
> OLD:
> Therefore, they are securable through the addition of Authentication TLVs
> [RFC5310] in the same way as Hellos or other IS-IS PDUs.
>
> and one editorial:
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>