Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:16:16 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

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.

Overall, the document appears to be well written and comprehensive and I 
have no problem with it proceeding to become an RFC.

I do have one editorial comment.  In Section 4, Security Considerations, 
the following bullet appears.
===
    - Authenticity of the path key. A concern is that the path key in the
      PKS will be altered or faked leading to erroneous path key
      expansion and the use of the wrong CPS. The consequence would be a
      bad ERO in a Path message causing the LSP to be set up incorrectly
      resulting in incorrect network resource usage, diversion of traffic
      to where it can be intercepted, or failure to set up the LSP. These
      problems can be prevented by protecting the protocol exchanges in
      PCEP and RSVP-TE using standard security techniques.
===
I feel that the term "standard security techniques" is too vague for a 
standards track document and would ask you to rephrase the last sentence 
to be:
"These problems can be prevented by protecting the protocol exchanges in 
PCEP and RSVP-TE using the techniques described in [PSEC] and [RFC2205]."
Or reference other techniques if you have them in mind.

Best regards,
Chris
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:32:02 -0000

Sure thing, Chris.

The references would be to RFC 5440 and to 
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-04.txt

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Lonvick" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Rich Bradford" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Deborah Brungard" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:16 PM
Subject: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03

---

From: [email-masked] (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:52:42 -0500 (EST)

>The references would be to RFC 5440 and to 

RFC 5440 has not yet been issued, according to the rfc-editor pages.  I 
could not pick out an obvious candidate in the drafts on the queue that
might be about to become RFC 5440 and www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5440.txt
gets a object-not-found error.

Typo?

--Sandy