Subject: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 12:17:55 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: 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-isis-segment-routing-extensions/

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

I need a bit of help understanding how to read the Security Considerations text
– threats are identified but how they are mitigated seems implicit.  The text,
“In general the same types of attacks … However, the latter will be more
difficult to detect …”, alludes to a similar threat without a reference and
seems to suggest it will be worse in the deployed environment of this extension.

The next paragraph, “Existing security extensions … [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]
apply …” states that [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] also apply.  What does apply mean
here – should they be used?  Do they mitigate what’s described in the previous
paragraph?

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

Section 2.3.  Typo.  s/advertsied/advertised/

---

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 20:21:56 +0000

Roman -

Thanx for the review.

Responses inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 12:18 PM
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Christian Hopps
> <[email-masked]>; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-
> extensions-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
[Les:] The point being made here is that when MPLS is in use the destinations affected by inappropriate/malicious use of a label cannot be directly identified as in the case of IP/IPv6 forwarding entries  - they require further investigation to determine.
But the result is the same - traffic is misrouted.

> here – should they be used?  Do they mitigate what’s described in the

[Les:] The two paragraphs are not directly related. RFC5304/RFC5310 define the use of MD5/Cryptographic authentication for IS-IS. Use of these extensions is prudent to protect all IS-IS advertisements. Referencing these RFCs is standard content for the Security section of almost any IS-IS extension.

   Les

> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr