Subject: [Pals] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: (with DISCUSS)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:29:37 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03: 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-pals-p2mp-pw/

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

I haven't sen a response to the SecDir review, so please point me to one if
there has been a response.  I fully agree with Tero that MD5 is not adequate
and hasn't been for some time.  What is the plan to rectify this and deprecate
use of the TCP MD5 signature for LDP? RFC8077, says that LDP MD5 authentication
key option as described in the section 2.9 of RFC5036 MUST be implemented.  I
asked on my ballot for RFC8077 when a deprecation process would start in
support of Stephen's abstain and would like an update on that process.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ga2pIVcGw9WEgBX5MXA9MCmSs_s

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:02:57 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw/

Hi Kathleen,

I have proposed some text that tells implementers and operators that MD5 
is inadequate and that they should be prepared for an upgraded default 
hash for LDP. I don't think we do any more at this stage.

I have just spoken to Loa, one of the MPLS chairs, and we have agreed to 
write a short draft within the next month to start the process of 
deprecating MD5 and selecting and standardizing a new default hash for 
LDP. We will discuss this draft with the MPLS WG via the MPLS list and 
at the next IETF.

Best Regards

Stewart

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:13:49 -0400

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for your response.  Inline.

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Stewart Bryant
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I have proposed some text that tells implementers and operators that MD5 is
> inadequate and that they should be prepared for an upgraded default hash for
> LDP. I don't think we do any more at this stage.

OK, I'll look out for the text.  Thanks.

> deprecating MD5 and selecting and standardizing a new default hash for LDP.
> We will discuss this draft with the MPLS WG via the MPLS list and at the
> next IETF.

That is very helpful, thank you.  Alvaro mentioned some of the
challenges, reminding of past discussions on this topic.  Would it be
helpful to engage security/crypto folks at routing vendors who would
be familiar with the challenges?  I'm thinking this could be helpful
to get recommendations and a transition plan that takes everything
into account that's needed for a successful transition.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen