[Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-06

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Reviewer: Mike Ounsworth
Review result: Ready

Draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-06

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.

The summary of the review is Ready; I see no security implications to this
draft although I have one substantial non-security comment related to handling
unassigned bits.

Introduction
“  Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
   ignored on receipt.
“
What happens if the sender and receiver have different views of which bits are
“unassigned”? Maybe because the sender and receiver’s software were written 5
years apart and the IANA registry changed in the mean time? I guess the two
options are: 1: the receiver MUST ignore unassigned bits by treating unassigned
bits as if they are 0. … this would generally allow for cases where the sender
is at a higher protocol level than the receiver without blowing up here …
although things could still blow up later if the ignored 1 bit ends up causing
the sender and receiver to behave differently in an important way. 2. the
receiver MUST ignore unassigned zero bits and fail with an error on unassigned
1 bits. This is probably “safer” but basically means that you can’t really add
anything new to the registry.

If you go with #1, then you could combat “rusting shut” by borrowing the GREASE
idea from TLS [RFC 8701] and saying: “Following the GREASE paradigm [RFC8701],
senders SHOULD occasionally set randomly-chosen unassigned bits to 1 in order
to force receivers to be tolerant of additional flags being added to the
registry after the receiver’s code was written”. One way or another, I found
this sentence to be under-specified, so it should be made more explicitly clear.


-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux