Subject: [mpls] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:48:13 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see mention of the possibility of the new LSP Ping and traceroute being
used for reconnaissance. Is there a reason that i snot applicable or should it
be added as a consideration?  Thanks.

Thanks for addressing the SecDir review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HhRollkdh9Y581j7HlQys8kP4nE

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:41:17 +0000

Kathleen,

Please see inline.

On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

It is a general consideration of the overall RFC 8029 approach, and not specific to this extension. As such, we did capture reconnaissance in Section 5 of RFC 8029, as:

   The third is an
   unauthorized source using an LSP ping to obtain information about the
   network.

Consequently, we are covered since there is no mitigation specific to the TFSs specified in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping.

You are welcome!

Best,

— Carlos.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:04:05 -0400

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Kathleen,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> On Oct 10, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> It is a general consideration of the overall RFC 8029 approach, and not
> specific to this extension. As such, we did capture reconnaissance in
> Section 5 of RFC 8029, as:
>
>    The third is an
> Consequently, we are covered since there is no mitigation specific to the
> TFSs specified in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping.

Thanks, Carlos.  I looked at the Security Considerations section as
referenced, so I missed that.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen