Subject: [Pce] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:57:15 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: 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-pce-pcep-service-aware/

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

The security sections of the referenced documents look very good.  The
one thing I don't see mentioned is use of these metrics to perform
network reconnaissance to perform other attacks.  I'm also interested to
see the responses to Stephen's questions.

Thanks.

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:57:13 +0000

Hi Kathleen,

Thanks for your review. 
I am posting the updated security consideration text (same as in the reply to Stephen), see inline. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
> Sent: 14 September 2016 22:27
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pce] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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
> The security sections of the referenced documents look very good.  The one
> thing I don't see mentioned is use of these metrics to perform network
> reconnaissance to perform other attacks.  I'm also interested to see the
> responses to Stephen's questions.
> 
> Thanks.

[Dhruv] Updated security consideration section reads - 
OLD
   This document defines new METRIC types, a new BU object, and new OF
   codes which does not add any new security concerns beyond those
   discussed in [RFC5440] and [RFC5541] in itself.  Some deployments may
   find the service aware information like delay and packet loss to be
   extra sensitive and thus should employ suitable PCEP security
   mechanisms like TCP-AO or [PCEPS].
NEW
   This document defines new METRIC types, a new BU object, and new OF
   codes which does not add any new security concerns beyond those
   discussed in [RFC5440] and [RFC5541] in itself.  Some deployments may
   find the service aware information like delay and packet loss to be
   extra sensitive and could be used to influence path computation and
   setup with adverse effect.  Additionally snooping of PCEP messages
   with such data may give an attacker sensitive information about the
   operations of the network.  Thus, such deployment should employ
   suitable PCEP security mechanisms like TCP Authentication Option
   (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or [PCEPS].  The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
   based procedure in [PCEPS] is considered as a security enhancement
   and thus much better suited for the sensitive service aware
   information.

Let me know if you would like some change in wordings. 

Thanks! 
Dhruv

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:31:57 -0400

Hello,

Thanks for the quick response.  inline.

>    and thus much better suited for the sensitive service aware

This looks good for Stephen's comment, could you add in something
about reconnaissance as well?  Maybe:

current new:
      Additionally snooping of PCEP messages
      with such data may give an attacker sensitive information about the
     operations of the network.
proposed new:
      Additionally snooping of PCEP messages
      with such data, or using PCEP messages for network
reconnaissance, may give an attacker sensitive information about the
      operations of the network.

Thanks,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:11:24 +0530

Will add. Thanks for the text.

Dhruv

On Thursday 15 September 2016, Kathleen Moriarty <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Hi Kathleen,
> >
> > Thanks for your review.
> >> From: Pce [mailto:[email-masked] <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of
> Kathleen Moriarty
> >> To: The IESG <[email-masked] <javascript:;>>
> >> Cc: [email-masked] <javascript:;>;
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>;
> >> [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> email
> one
> >> [email-masked] <javascript:;>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:08:33 -0500

Dhruv,

> Will add. Thanks for the text.

Now that you have feedback from at least one SEC AD, I wanted to add that I
thought your text was very helpful (and even more helpful with Kathleen's
addition, of course).

Thanks,

Spencer, who isn't speaking for Mirja, either, of course!