Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-09

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 11:44:27 +0200

Hello,

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 document refers to [RFC6371] and [RFC6941] for detailed security
discussions. I have no problem with that. However I have two comments:

1/ It says:
   "Implementations therefore are required to offer security mechanisms
    for OAM.  Deployments are strongly advised to use such mechanisms."
These sentences do not use the RFC2119 key words. Is that deliberate?

2/ I really have problems understanding the following claim:
   "Mixing of per-node and per-interface OAM on a single node is not
   advised as OAM message leakage could be the result."
Can you be more explicit in the I-D? It's important since it's probably not
discussed in [RFC6371] and [RFC6941].

Minor comments:

** MEP is used without being defined. 

Cheers,

  Vincent

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 04:24:47 +0100

Hi Vincent,

Thanks for your time.

> These sentences do not use the RFC2119 key words. Is that deliberate?

Yes.
This is an Informational and Design Considerations document, not a protocol
spec.
The normal English language seemed perfectly fine for conveying the consensus of
the WG.

> discussed in [RFC6371] and [RFC6941].

It seemed to the authors (and the WG - in fact, I recall this text coming from
the WG review) that an implementation that attempts to handle per interface OAM
and per node OAM is almost certain to get confused and send the wrong OAM
messages at the wrong time.

I would not go as far as to suggest that the quoted text is particularly
important, and the only way I can think to clarify it would be by adding "unless
an implementation is particularly well designed and tested."

> ** MEP is used without being defined.

You're right! 
Amazed that it slipped through. Thanks.

Cheers,
Adrian