On 10 July 2014 16:58, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > So you don't like my proposed solution? > > I am not quite sure what you do consider a resolution to your concern. I can see three options: > > 1. Add security-related text to each section of this document. > 2. Beef up the Security Considerations section with a subsection related to each section of the document. > 3. Add a new section "How Secure is my PCE-Enabled System?" as I suggested. > > Do you have a preference among these, or is there another option you like better? I prefer 1, that way the security advice is likely to be read by whoever reads that section - that is, by the people who are likely to benefit from it. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl@xxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: 09 July 2014 15:04 >> To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: IETF Discussion List; secdir@xxxxxxxx; The IESG >> Subject: Re: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06 >> >> On 9 July 2014 09:55, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Ben, >> > >> > Thanks for taking the time to review this document and for posting your >> comments to the IETF discussion list so that we can consider them as last call >> comments. >> > >> > [snip] >> > >> >> The security considerations section makes this claim: >> >> >> >> "This informational document does not define any new protocol elements >> >> or mechanism. As such, it does not introduce any new security >> >> issues." >> >> >> >> I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion: just because an RFC >> >> does not introduce new security issues, that does not mean that there >> >> are no security considerations. >> >> >> >> Indeed, this RFC discusses many things that have quite serious >> >> security considerations, without mentioning any of them. For example, >> >> section 4 "How Do I Find My PCE?" (the very first question) advocates >> >> a number of potentially completely insecure mechanisms with no mention >> >> of their security properties (or otherwise). This is obviously >> >> pervasive, given the stance taken in the security considerations. >> >> >> >> The document does mention that RFC 6952 gives a security analysis for >> >> PCEP, and perhaps this is sufficient but it seems to me that a >> >> document intended to give useful background information to noobs >> >> should include security directly in that information rather than defer >> >> to another giant document (which mixes PCEP info with other >> >> protocols). >> > >> > I don't believe that this document is strong on "advocacy", but discusses which >> tools are out there and what some people do. >> > >> > Previous PCE RFCs have given some attention to security concerns in the use of >> PCE (RFC 4655), PCE discovery (RFC 4674, RFC 5088. RFC 5089), and the PCEP (RFC >> 4657 and RFC 5440). As such, "PCE Security" was not deemed by the authors to be >> a previously "unanswered question" and so did not need attention in this >> document. >> > >> > That said, you are correct that the various sections do not discuss the security >> implications relating to those sections. I would be pretty loathe to add security >> text to each section in this document: I think that would make the document >> heavy and less likely to be read by its intended consumers (it is not targeting >> "noobs" although they are welcome to read it). >> >> Your position appears to be that they will then go on to read much >> heavier documents in order to discover the security properties of the >> solutions you suggest, which seems a little unlikely, particularly if >> there's no mention of the necessity to do so. >> >> Or perhaps you think security is not important? >> >> > Perhaps a solution to this *is* to treat Security as an unanswered question and >> add a section "How Secure is my PCE-Enabled System?" I can't think of a lot to >> add there except for general egg-sucking guidance, but there would be a pointer >> to the TCP-AO discussions currently going on in the WG. What do you think of >> that as a way forward? >> >> I have no idea what discussions are going on, but once more, if you >> are concerned about "heaviness" of documentation, pointing at ongoing >> discussions does not strike me as a route to lightness. >