RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh - Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control to Proposed Standard

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

So Steve to the Discuss and I would point him to where to look
to see if there are indeed security issues.

As far as I understand it:

- This document just defines a few extra RSVP-TE objects to be
  send in RSVP protocol messages over the control channel
- It also defines a few extra CR-LDP TLVs to be send in CR-LDP
  protocol messages over the control channel 
- It defines how each end of the protocol exchange should compose
  the objects/tlvs and how to deal with them.
- So these are GMPLS-for-SONET extensions to the base GMPLS
  documents, specified in RFC3471 (functionality) RFC3472 (CR-LDPR)
  and RFC3473 (RSVP_TE). 
- Those original documents build on the original RSVP-TE and CR-LDP
  So, they have
  - in RFC3471 they point to RFC3212, RFC3209 for security
    considerations. 
    - RFC3212 (CR-LDP) basically points back to LDP (RFC3036) for 
      security considerations, and that RFC3036 indeed has an 
      extensive security considerations section (in sect 5.
      some 2.5 pages)
    - RFC3209 does peak about some extra security considerations
      for RSVP-TE which come on top of the base RSVP (RFC2205)
      which has security (quite extensive) considerations in 
      sect 2.8.
  - in RFC3472 they point back to base CR-LDP (RFC3212) for
    security Considerations
  - in RFC3473 they actually do somewhat better in that they do
    go into details on how to run things in a secure way. 
    They also point back to RFC2747 for original RSVP 
    Cryptographic Authentication.
 
So I think they have it pretty well covered.
It is kind of tough though to find exactly all the security
considerations. 

Steve... I suspect you may need a bit of time to check all this.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> Sent: zaterdag 1 maart 2003 3:27
> To: IESG Secretary
> Cc: Internet Engineering Steering Group
> Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh - 
> Generalized
> Multiprotocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control to
> Proposed Standard 
> 
> 
> In message <200302282111.QAA13490@ietf.org>, IESG Secretary writes:
> >
> >Last Call to expire on: 2003-2-24
> >
> >	Please return the full line with your position.
> >
> >                    Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  
> >
> >
> >Harald Alvestrand   [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Scott Bradner       [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Randy Bush          [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Patrik Faltstrom    [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Bill Fenner         [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Ned Freed           [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Marcus Leech        [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Allison Mankin      [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Thomas Narten       [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Erik Nordmark       [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Jeff Schiller       [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >Bert Wijnen         [ X ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ]
> >Alex Zinin          [   ]     [   ]       [   ]      [   ] 
> >
> 
> Why is Marcus's name on this ballot?  (I notice that the 
> ballot on the 
> Web site shows me.)
> 
> 
> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
> 		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of 
> "Firewalls" book)
> 
>