Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-send-psreq-03

From: "Chirayu Patel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:28:48 +0530

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:42:00 +0300, "Pekka Nikander"
<[email-masked]> said:
> The problem is that the psreq draft has already passed the IESG review,
> I have already resolved the minor issues that they had, and now the
> draft is waiting for their acceptanse on the resolutions.  In other
> words, the draft is fairly long on its way to become an RFC.

I hadn't picked up the document with the intention of reviewing it. But,
I had time, and I also had many suggestions so I mailed them. That's it.
:-) I wasn't even a WG member then.

Hopefully, I'll be wiser next time around, and check the document status.
I do understand that some of the comments cannot be incorporated.

Btw, is there any link that shows the document status? The main IETF page
only points to documents in last call.

> Based on the that status, and the fact that the draft does not specify
> a protocol but is only informational, we are inclided to reject your
> editorial suggestion #5 as a too large one. While it might be good, its
> doesn't warrant the required new   review.

I was keen on this one. Anyways.....

> Going to the technical comments:
>
> >  1. Threats for a L2-switch, and ND-proxies. L2-switches, and ND-
> >     proxies build their neighbor cache by snooping the source IPv6
> >     address, and the corresponding link-layer address. It is possible
> >     to send fake NS/NA/RA/RD/redirect/Data (any packet which is used
> >     to build the neighbor cache), and do a redirect/DOS attack.
> >
> >     I think section 4 should list a threat concerning such devices.
>
> While your intention is good, I think that any such work should be left
> for future.  There has been some discussion about these kinds of use
> scenarios before.  However, only maybe a couple of people have shown
> real interest on working on those problems, and so far we have seen no
> real, concrete input.

I am surprised that there is not much input on the subject as I perceive
that L2-switches, and similar devices can be exploited rather easily.

> >  3. Section 4.2.1.
> >        a. What is the "entering node"?
>
> Well, a node attempting to discover a router is most probably a new
> node entering to the link.  I readily admit that the text is not
> very clear.  If you could propose how to revise the text, that would
> be great.

Maybe you can substitute entering node by "a node attempting to discover
a router". It will cover all nodes irrespective of whether they have
entered the network, or are already on the network, and are attempting to
discover routers for no matter what reason.

> >        b. I might be a bit confused - isn’t the section referring to
> >           the first-hop router? Can you also give the reference
> >           number to a section number in RFC2461 talks of this threat?
>
> The text has been inherited a few times.  I would need to read RFC2461
> carefully in order to find out which section it is.  But, yes, it would
> be good to add a reference to the specific section.
>
> Does anybody else remember right away?

More than the section number, I am concerned about the terminology. I
think the text should refer to the router as a first hop router, and not
as a last hop router.

>
> >        c. The 3rd paragraph talks of RFC 2461, and 2462. Is there a
> >           conflict between these two documents? I am not able to
> >           understand why the default router selection procedure in
> >           section 6.3.6 needs a rule that concerns with the lifetime
> >           of the router.
>
> I am not really an expert on the differences between 2461 and 2462.
> Could somebody else provide an answer?  If good enough, I can add it to
> the draft (if the IESG approves, of course).

You can probably read section 5.5.3 of rfc2462, and 6.3.6 of rfc2461, and
make the judgement. I think this paragraph is misleading, and should be
rephrased. (Sorry, it's late in the night for me to suggest anything
sensible. ;-))

> A pre-release of the updated draft, with the resolutions to the IESG
> issues and your concerns, is available at
>
> http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/SEND/draft-ietf-send-psreq-04-pre-Oct15.txt
> http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/SEND/draft-ietf-send-psreq-04-pre-Oct15.html
> http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/SEND/draft-ietf-send-psreq-04-pre-Oct15.xml
>
> The changes are highlighted in
>
> http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/SEND/draft-ietf-send-psreq-04-pre-Oct15-
> diff.html http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/SEND/draft-ietf-send-psreq-04-pre-Oct15-
> chbar.txt

Thanks. I am curious - what software do you use to get the changebars?

regards, CP

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the
body to <[email-masked]>.
Archive: http://standards.ericsson.net/lists/ietf-send/maillist.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:24:12 +0300

Chirayu,

Sorry for the delay in answering (again), but I have
been busy trying to get drafts out.

> only points to documents in last call.

Go to the IETF web page -> WG Chairs -> ID tracker.  There you can
look up the status of WG IDs.

> think the text should refer to the router as a first hop router, and not

Valid point.  I will fix this if there is yet another round of the 
draft.  (Made the change to the internal 05-pre version, which may
be or may not be ever used.)

> Thanks. I am curious - what software do you use to get the changebars?

Some hack called chbars.sh.  I have seen better ones, should try to
locate one.

--Pekka Nikander