Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-dcn-06

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:58:41 -0600

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 describes a method for encapsulating and delivery of Data 
Communication Network (DCN) messages over the General Associated Channel 
(G-ACh).  The purpose of which, is to allow additional mechanisms to 
control/manage MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching) networks.

The security considerations section does exist and describes that DCN 
messages are required to have adequate security mechanisms.  The section 
doesn't describe what those mechanisms are, but should at least provide 
a reference from other MPLS RFC/I-Ds that do.

General comments(s):

None.

Editorial comment(s):

Expand the abbreviation of OAM in the introduction section.

The following sentence is truncated:
   There is no need to create a CCh for every LSP between a pair of

s/security attack/security attacks/

-- 
Shawn.

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:37:04 +0100

Thanks for the review, Shawn.

> doesn't describe what those mechanisms are, but should at least provide a 
> reference from other MPLS RFC/I-Ds that do.

I'm a little unclear what you are asking for here.
The draft defines a channel (i.e. a logical data link) down which any 
packet-based protocol could be run.
Are you suggesting that this draft should contain a reference to the 
security mechanisms for each protocol that might be run down the channel? 
That seems like an impossible task.

We could, I suppose, add text to note that "the MPLS data plane does not 
include any security mechanisms of its own, therefore it is important that 
protocols using the DCN apply their own security."

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:36:06 -0600

Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> messages are required to have adequate security mechanisms.  The 
>> section doesn't describe what those mechanisms are, but should at 
>> least provide a reference from other MPLS RFC/I-Ds that do.
>
> security mechanisms for each protocol that might be run down the 
> channel? That seems like an impossible task.
>
> We could, I suppose, add text to note that "the MPLS data plane does 
> not include any security mechanisms of its own, therefore it is 
> important that protocols using the DCN apply their own security."

Yes or a reference to something like RFC 3985's security considerations 
section, as it also does a good job in explaining the inherit risks of 
existing packet protocols and possible solutions.

Regards,

-- 
Shawn.