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.
This document extends the matching capabilities of the LDP Wildcard
FEC element, which matches all Forwarding Equivalence Classes bound to
a given label, by adding a second Typed Wildcard FEC element, which
matches all FECs of a given type, with optional additional type-
specific constraints. Because this change is relatively minor, the
security considerations are mostly the same as the base protocol, as
noted by the Security Considerations section; however, I would prefer
if the authors explained a little better why this is the case.
From an editorial perspective, this document is unclear on several
important points, especially with regard to the type-specific
constraints and how they are defined and managed. I think the
document would would benefit from another revision, focused on making
the meaning and management of all parameters clear to ensure
interoperability.
Detailed comments follow.
--Richard
Specific comments:
Section 1, Para "As specified..."
With respect to the phrase "relative to an optional constraint": I
don't see anything in RFC 5036 that allows for such a constraint. The
Wildcard FEC type "is to be applied to all FECs associated with the
label within the following label TLV."
Section 1, Para "1. The Wildcard FEC Element is untyped"
It's not quite accurate to say that the element is untyped; it has
type 0x01. Suggest something like "The Wildcard FEC element only
allows very coarse selection of FECs by label."
Section 1, General
Clearly you're really after here isn't to change the Wildcard FEC
Element (as the last sentence of the section says), but to have a new
element that is a typed Wildcard. It would be clearer and more
accurate to say this, e.g., in bullet (2), "There are situations where
it would be useful to have a wildcard-like FEC Element, with type
constraints, in Label Request messages."
Section 2, TLV
s/Lenth/Length/
Section 3, Para "The Typed Wildcard FEC Element..."
The language about constraints here seems vague. (In what sense is
the constraint "optional"?) Suggest the following:
"
A Typed Wildcard FEC Element specifies a FEC Type and, optionally, a
constraint. An element of this type refers to all FECs of the
specified FEC Type that meet the constraint. The format of the
constraint field depends on the FEC Type specified.
"
Section 3, Para "Additional FEC Type-specific Information ..." et seq
It is unclear whose responsibility it is to define the structure of
this field (i.e., who is the "designer"?). Do you mean to say this:
"Additional constraints that the FEC must satisfy in order to be
selected. The format of the Additional FEC Type-specific Information
depends on the FEC type in question. This document defines the format
of this field for the Prefix FEC type."
The text here and in the document suggest that there should perhaps be
a procedure for defining and registering formats for this field.
However, you may want to specify that any FEC Type may be specified
with a zero-length Additional FEC Type-specific Information field to
simply match all FECs of that FEC Type (in order to make it easy to
use without a whole lot of new RFCs).
Section 4, Para "It is the responsibility..." et seq
The authors of this document are the designers of the Typed Wildcard
FEC Element Type; who do you mean? It is meaningless to have a MUST
that is conditional on "making sense".
Section 4, Para "When a FEC TLV..."
This constraint made sense for the generic Wildcard type, since that
would overwhelm any other FEC Elements, but it's not clear why it's
necessary here. Couldn't I have a Label Withdraw message that
withdraws all CR-LSP FECs and a single Prefix FEC?
Section 6, General
You need to specify the semantics of this field. Does it match all
FECs that are of the given address family? Also, this doesn't allow
any constraints on prefix length or the prefix itself; is that
intentional?
Section 7, Para "In other words ..."
s/can not/MUST NOT/
Section 9, General
I would like to see a little more explanation of why this extension to
LDP does not create additional security considerations. It seems like
at the very least it increases the risk of misconfiguration by adding
much more flexible wildcard matching rules; that is, it seems more
likely that an LSR operator will accidentally match things he doesn't
intend to, or vice versa.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf