Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-05

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 19:03:04 +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.

IMHO, the document is Almost ready.

The author claims this document "raise[s] no new security concerns".
I think the author is right, however I have two comments:

- it's preferable to mention explicitely that RFC 6378 provides the baseline
  security discussion and that it also applies to the present document.

- Making sure an implementation behaves correctly in front of malformed
  messages is typically something that should be mentioned/discussed in the
  Security Section. This is the case in section 2.3 "Error handling".
  Can an attacker through malformed/unexpected messages (e.g., with fuzzing)
  launch a DoS?
  I don't suggest to move section 2.3 in the Security Discussion section, but
  rather to add a sentence in the Security Section explaining that this document
  in section 2.3 also clarifies how to react in front of malformed/unexpected
  messages (which is essential from a security point of view).

Cheers,

    Vincent

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:10:17 +0100

Hi Vincent,
 
Good points, but s/6378/6941/
 
Adrian
 
From: iesg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Vincent Roca
Sent: 12 May 2014 18:03
To: IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: Vincent Roca
Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-05
 
Hello,

 

Cheers,
 
    Vincent

---

From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:49:19 -0400

Does 6941 go down as normative or informative?  My guess is informative.

eric

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:02:31 +0100

Yes, thanks.
A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric Osborne
> Sent: 14 May 2014 13:49
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: Vincent Roca; [email-masked]; IESG; draft-ietf-mpls-psc-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Secdir review of draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-05
>

---

From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:03:18 -0400

...
>   messages (which is essential from a security point of view).

I have added this to the security section.  It now reads:

---
7.  Security Considerations

   These changes and clarifications raise no new security concerns.  RFC
   6941 [RFC6941] provides the baseline security discussion for MPLS-TP,
   and PSC (both RFC 6378 and this document) fall under that umbrella.
   Additionally, Section 2.2 clarifies how to react to malformed or
   unexpected messages.

---

Is that sufficient?

eric

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:42:21 -0400

Thanks for addressing Vincent's comments from the SecDir review.  I
just have one correction in-line.

>    Additionally, Section 2.2 clarifies how to react to malformed or
It should be 2.3, not 2.2 for the error handling section. It my be
helpful to note that this is a preventative security measure so it is
understood, something like:

Additionally, Section 2.3 clarifies how to react to malformed or
unexpected messages, also an important preventative security measure.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen