Thank you for addressing my comments. 

>From my perspective the document is now ready. 

Regards, 

Dan




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luyuan Fang (lufang) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 7:52 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; ms-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-07
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thank you very much for your review and detailed comments, really
> appreciate your discussion and helpful suggestions.
> 
> I updated the document, addressed all your comments. It is reflected in
> the 08 version just posted.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-
> framework-0
> 8.txt
> 
> 
> We acknowledged your help in the document.
> 
> Please see in-line.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <Romascanu>, "Dan   (Dan)" <[email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:09 AM
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Luyuan Fang <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
> Nabil Bitar <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-07
> 
> >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> >Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> >
> ><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> >you may receive.
> >
> >Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-07
> >Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> >Review Date: 1/31/13
> >IETF LC End Date: 2/6/13
> >IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> >
> >Summary: Ready with Issues
> >
> >This is a short, well-written and useful document that supplements RFC
> >5920 with information on reference models, security threats and defense
> >techniques specific to MPLS-TP. There is one major issue which I
> >believe should be fixed and is not too difficult to fix if the authors
> agree.
> >
> >Major issues:
> >
> >One of the major features of extending MPLS in MPLS-TP is rightly
> >identified in the words of the Abstract as the 'strong emphasis on
> >static provisioning supported by network management systems'. However
> >Sections 3 and 4 miss to describe accurately the threats introduced by
> >provisioning tools and the defensive techniques that need to be put in
> >place in order to address these threats.
> >
> >Section 3 speaks about 'attacks to NMS' but this is quite vague (what
> >kind of attacks?) and incomplete, as it is not only the NMS that can be
> >attacked but also the communication between the NMS and the routers
> >that are being provisioned, as well as the access of the users to the
> >provisioning tools. Threats like disclosure of information, masquerade
> >(as NMS) or access of unauthorized users to the provisioning
> >information and controls need to be clearly articulated here.
> 
> [luyuan] Good points. In Section 3, the following text is added (after
> the paragraph talks "attacks to NMS"):
> 
> 
> Attacks to NMS may come from external attackers, or insiders. Outside
> attacks are initiated outside of the trusted zone by unauthorized user
> of the MPLS-TP network management systems. Insider attack is initiated
> from inside of the trusted zone by an entity with authorized access to
> the management systems, but performs unapproved harmful functions to the
> MPLS-TP networks. These attacks may be directly targeted to the NMS, or
> via the compromised communication channels between the NMS and the
> network devices that are being provisioned, or through the access of the
> users to the provisioning tools. The security threat may include
> disclosure of information, generating false OAM messages, taking down
> MPLS-TP LSPs, connecting to the wrong MPLS-TP tunnel end points, and DoS
> attacks to the MPLS-TP networks.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >In Section 4 the corresponding defensive techniques need to be listed,
> >or at least make clear that techniques like entity authentication for
> >identity verification, encryption for confidentiality, message
> >integrity and replay detection to ensure the validity of message
> >streams, as well as users access control and events logging need to
> >apply also for NMS applications and provisioning traffic.
> 
> >
> [luyuan] Agreed. The following paragraph is added at the end of the
> section 4, pretty much based on your suggestions.
> 
> It is important to point out the following security defense techniques
> which are particularly critical for NMS due to the strong emphasis on
> static provisioning supported by NMS in MPLS-TP deployment. These
> techniques include: Entity authentication for identity verification,
> encryption for confidentiality, message integrity and replay detection
> to ensure the validity of message streams, as well as users access
> control and events logging which must be applied for NMS and
> provisioning applications.
> >
> >Minor issues:
> >
> >Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> >1. Several acronyms are not expanded at first occurrence: PE/T-PE, GAL
> 
> [luyuan] Fixed. We initially had terminology section, it was taken out
> during the last call discussion. I added the section back with a new
> list of terms that are relevant to this document.
> >
> >2. Inconsistent abbreviation: T-PE in the text, TPE in figures 2-5
> 
> [luyuan] Fixed.
> >
> >3. The first sentence in Section 3 seems broken grammatically:
> >
> >> This section discuss various network security threats which are to
> >   MPLS-TP and may endanger MPLS-TP networks.
> 
> [luyuan] Fixed.
> New text: This section discusses various network security threats that
> are unique to MPLS-TP and may endanger MPLS-TP networks.
> >
> >
> Thanks,
> Luyuan

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to