OK, thanks, that's clear what you'd like. Not sure I like the approach, but I now have something to chew on. I'll get back to you. A > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 10 July 2014 17:02 > To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: IETF Discussion List; secdir@xxxxxxxx; The IESG > Subject: Re: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06 > > 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. > >