Hi Eric, Thanks for incorporating my comments. See one inline.
On 2/9/21, 6:10 AM, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Acee, Thank you for your directorate review and sorry for such a belated reply! Special thanks for the DIFF containing suggestions for improving the text. Most of them have been applied (none of the authors is English native so such assistance is welcome) Look below for EV> for more comments. Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 at 17:21 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Routing Directorate <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [OPSEC] RtgDir: Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt - "Operational Security Considerations for IPv6 Networks" Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Early Review/Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-opsec-v6-21.txt Reviewer: Acee Lindem Review Date: 12/2/2019 IETF LC End Date: Soon Intended Status: Informational Summary: The document contains a lot of useful recommendations and references for Operational Security in IPv6 networks. Since the document has "Informational" status, none of the text is normative. While the information content is very good, parts of the document are very hard to read and need revision. In general, the usage of long clauses connected by semicolons should be discouraged and the lists connected in this manner should be replaced with complete sentences. I've attached a diffs with editorial suggests but didn't try and rewrite all the semicolon connected text segments. EV> let's hope that the RFC Editor will find and remediate those long constructs. There are also minor issues that need to be addressed. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: 1. Section 1.0 - What do you mean by "updating it with that have been standardized since 2007."? It just doesn't read right. EV> text has been simplified in -23 2. Section 2.1 - IPv4 also allows multiple addresses per interface, i.e., secondary addresses. So what is new? EV> last sentence now reads as "Having by default multiple IPv6 addresses per interface is a major change compared to the unique IPv4 address per interface for hosts (secondary IPv4 addresses are not common); especially for audits (see section Section 2.6.2.3)." 3. Section 2.1.5 - The whole discussion on how to use Router Advertisement (RA) messages lacks enough context to understand. Also, expand RA in the first occurrence. EV> text was not clear indeed, changed 4. Section 2.2.3 - Expand out NDP since it is not clear that it is Neighbor Discovery Protocol from the context. It is expanded later in section 2.3. EV> thanks, fixed 5. Section 2.4 - RFC 6192 not only defines the "router control plane" but provides much better guidance for control plane filtering than section 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. EV> text updated 6. Section 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 - The ingress ACL should only be applied on the packets punted to the RP. EV> indeed, added 7. Section 2.4.1 - If OSPFv3 vitual links are used, the destination address will not be a link-local address. EV> trusting you on this one, text modified 8. Section 2.4.3 - Suggest references for Path MTU Discovery and traceroute. EV> good idea 9. Section 2.5.1 - HMAC MD5 is considered vulnerable. EV> let's indeed remove this paragraph 10. Section 2.5.2 - What prior section describes the operational costs of IPsec? EV> oups the previous section was deleted revisions ago... 11. Section 2.5.3 - Need expansion and reference for RADB. EV> indeed, added reference to https://www.radb.net/ 12. Section 2.6 - Need expansion and reference for GDPR. EV> indeed, added reference to https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj 13. Section 2.7.1 - ACLs are typically per address family so this recommendation isn't really feasible. Please revise. EV> I disagree, this is a platform limitation. Text unchanged. ACEE> I don't know of a platform that doesn't have this limitation. Also, the IETF YANG model is organized with all ACL entries in an ACL being the same type. See excerpt from RFC 8519: list acl { key "name"; description "An ACL is an ordered list of ACEs. Each ACE has a list of match criteria and a list of actions. Since there are several kinds of ACLs implemented with different attributes for different vendors, this model accommodates customizing ACLs for each kind and for each vendor."; leaf name { type string { length "1..64"; } description "The name of the access list. A device MAY further restrict the length of this name; space and special characters are not allowed."; } leaf type { type acl-type; description "Type of ACL. Indicates the primary intended type of match criteria (e.g., Ethernet, IPv4, IPv6, mixed, etc.) used in the list instance."; } However, I don't feel that strongly. Thanks, Acee 14. Section 2.7.2.6 - Expand MAP-E and MAP-T. EV> done 15. Section 3.1 and 4.1 - Define bogon and provide reference. EV> done, added reference to CYMRU 16. Section 3.2 - Bad reference in fourth paragraph. EV> fixed in -22 17. Section 5 - Suggest references for Teredo tunnels and NAT-PT. Also, expand NAT-PT on first occurrence. EV> good idea for Teredo (added) and NAPT is now defined in section 1 Nits: Attached diff with suggested edits. EV> big thanks for them Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
