[manet] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep -ether-credit-extension-06

Hi Sue,

Thanks for the review. Sorry for the tardy reply.

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 2:24 PM Susan Hares via Datatracker <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Reviewer: Susan Hares
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> ...
>
> Document: draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-06
> Reviewer: Susan Hares
> Result: Ready with issues
> Review Date: 2024-08-12
>
> Summary: This document refers to draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15.txt
> and RFC8175.  My technical issue with this specification is
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15, and the lack of comments on
> wildcards in the security section.  This document also has editorial nits.
>
> Benefit of this draft: Credit window schemes can enable effective data
flow
> processing for 802.1Q.
>
> Issue 1: Issue with draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15:
> draft-ietf-manet-credit-window as a specification of the credit-window
scenario.
> draft-ietf-manet-credit-window is a document declared "DEAD" by the IESG
> with flaws noted in the TSV-ART and OPS-DIR review.
>
> In my gen-art review for draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-15, I've noted
issues in that document.
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-15-genart-lc-hares-2024-08-12/
>
> Since that document is a key reference in this document, those issues
impact this document.

We are working on resolving comments, updating, and getting these four
drafts through:

   - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-15
   - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-18
   - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-06
   - draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-12

This draft (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-06) normatively
references draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow and the comments on
dlep-credit-flow should be answered separately, However,
draft-ietf-manet-credit-window is only an informational reference from
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow,

> Issue 2: "wildcard" matching of any PCP or VID needs
security/manageability comment
>
> Wildcards ease the manageability of matching PCP or VID fields.  However,
the
> security section should make some comment about the risks of wildcard
matching for these fields.

Something like:
     Care must be exercised in the use of wildcards for matching PCP and
VID fields. Wildcards may be convenient to match a number of packet flows
but could inadvertently match new flows that appear after the wildcard
matching has been set up or more flows than intended.

> Comments on Editorial NITs:
> 1. Unclear use of ".e.g.," format in 3 places
>
> Place 1: Section 4, paragraph 7.
>
> Old text:/
>    Routers may have limits on the number of queues that they can support
>    and, perhaps, even limits in supported credit window combinations,
>    e.g., if per destination queues can even be supported at all. /
>
> Translating the "e.g.," to "For example, if per destination queues can
even be supported at all"
> gives an unclear sentence.  Best to rewrite this sentence.

How about
     Routers may have limits on the number of queues that they can support
     and limits on supported credit window combinations. Per destination
     queues might not be supported at all.

> Place 2:  Section 4, paragraph 7, last sentence
>
> Old text:/
>    In either case, the mismatch of
>    capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
>    management mechanisms, e.g., user interface or error logging./
>
> The "e.g.," format is used correctly in the singular form ("a--" or
"b--").
> However, the "e.g.," format does not create a clear sentence.
>
> Two alternative:
>
> New text-1:/
>    In either case, the mismatch of
>    capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
>    management mechanisms (e.g. user interface or error logging)./
>
> New text-2:/
>    In either case, the mismatch of
>    capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
>    management mechanisms suchg as user interface or error logging./

How about a tweak on text 2:
     In either case, the mismatch of
     capabilities SHOULD be reported to the user via normal network
     management mechanisms such as user interface messages or error logging.

> Place 3: Section 4: Security considerations, paragraph 1, sentence 2
>
> Old text:/The defined extension
>    exposes vulnerabilities similar to existing DLEP messages, e.g., an
>    injected message resizes a credit window to a value that results in a
>    denial of service./
>
> The "e.g.," format does not provide a clear indication that this
vulnerability is one
> of several potential vulnerabilities.

How about
     The defined extension is exposed to vulnerabilities similar to existing
     DLEP messages and discussed in the Security Considerations section
     of [RFC8175] such as an injected message resizing a credit window
     to a value that results in a denial of service.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email protected]

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]