Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): End Station Address Distribution Information (ESADI) Protocol
draft-ietf-trill-esadi-09

[Ballot comment]
I support Stephen's discuss on privacy concerns and the need to elaborate on them.

For the privacy concerns, having some experience on campus networks, it can be really helpful to pin point where an end node is when it is acting up (during a security incident).  So there are clear advantages of having this tie to authenticated connections for the ESADI method as well as the ability to blackhole infected hosts.  For privacy considerations, ESADI also tracks when end nodes move around, which should be mentioned as a consideration (good for security for blackholing and tied to NAC for network hygiene). 

If this information (location of end node) is logged, (basically - as I read it) the full network map could be logged and created, as well as maintained over time as it changes.  On a campus network, privacy issues may arise when some sort of investigation is looking to identify where someone was at a particular point in time (or who did something).  This has pros and cons.  With other services (web logs in particular), some university admins have had the practice of removing logs after 30 days (by policy) to protect privacy and to avoid dealing with warrants - essentially if they don't have the data, they can't help.  An example of that is web logs and dealing with the illegal download of media.  Now we should not get into that full explanation of this example to explain the privacy issues, but a description of the risks to privacy when location over time could be pin pointed would be helpful for implementers to understand if they decide log and aggregate this information.  They will want to consider appropriate storage periods.  If it is stored at all, they could get subjected to record retention requirements as well (but I have not looked to see if any apply, I'm just highlighting that there could be requirements once they have and log this data).

I also support Russ' request from the Gen-art review and agree with the proposed solution.

[Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's and Stephen's DISCUSS points.  It is incredibly disconcerting that there is no interoperability discussions in this document despite the claims in section 1.1.

[Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's and Stephen's DISCUSS points.  It is incredibly disconcerting that there is no interoperability discussions in this document given its relationship to the base TRILL spec.

[Ballot discuss]

There is no mention of privacy here and I think that's needed
- this seems to allow rbridges to shoot about a lot of
information that could be considered privacy sensitive, esp.
if that is logged. The document also talks about "other
information" in a very vague manner.  I realise that this
protocol can be quite useful in managaging and securing
campus networks, so the privacy issues ought be relatively
easy to handle sensibly but having no mention at all seems
just wrong. Even if this is limited to campus networks, in
various countries, data protection issues may come into play.
What I think I'd suggest is that there be some form of
applicability statement that says what kinds of other
information this is really for and also some text that
dicusses the privacy implications of esp. logging the data
passed about via ESADI.

[Ballot comment]

- More IPR on TRILL, sigh. Ah well.

- Please consider the secdir review [1] and Russ' related
gen-art comment (in Jari's ballot). I think making changes
for those would be good.

  [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04737.html

[Ballot comment]
Nit

Section 1
Maybe it is US usage, but
      frames ingressed for that end station's MAC address
didn't have a parsable meaning for me.
Fortunately there is an explanation immediately after that suggests...
"ingressed" == "sent into the network"
"for" == "with a destination MAC address set to"

---

Nit

Some of the brackets in Figure 4 should say "bytes" not "byte"

---

Ted will presumably want the authors to indicate how the multi-byte Length field in section 6.1 is encoded.

---

In section 6.1 a variable length field "Reserved for future expansion" is a bit odd, IMHO. I see what you are doing for future compatibility, but the way of doing it is "different".

[Ballot discuss]
I appreciate the clear statement that the protocol described in this
document is not backward compatible with ESADI as described in RFC 6325.
However, this makes me question the migration strategy and
interoperability issues.

It looks like every rbridge attached to an end station in a particular
Data Label needs to be speaking the same version of ESADI, or that some
rbridges must speak both versions and work out which one to use.

Questions that need to be answered are:

* What happens when a 6325 implementation meets an implementation of
  this I-D? How will it handle the new LSPs/PDUs and how will the
  implementation of this I-D know what to do to correctly advertise
  its attached end stations?

* What happens when an implementation of this I-D meets an
  implementation of 6325? How will it handle the obsolete LSPs and how
  will it learn about end stations attached to the 6325 implementation?

* Is there a migration strategy from 6325 to this I-D?

I suspect some of the answer is through neighbor determination, but
since 6325 implementations are presumably in the wild there needs to be
some discussion o how this hangs together.

[Ballot comment]
Nit

Section 1
Maybe it is US usage, but
      frames ingressed for that end station's MAC address
didn't have a parsable meaning for me.
Fortunately there is an explanation immediately after that suggests...
"ingressed" == "sent into the network"
"for" == "with a destination MAC address set to"

[Ballot comment]
I believe Russ' comment below is something that should be handled:

> Section 8, the security considerations, say:
>
> ESADI PDUs can be authenticated through the inclusion of the
> Authentication TLV as described in Section 6.3.
>
> However, there seems to me something missing.  Section 6.3 tells how to derive a 256-bit authentication
> key.  It does not say how that key will be used to actually compute a message authentication code.  I would
> expect a reference to this information to be included in Section 6.3.

[Ballot comment]
In Section 4.4:
s/EASDI-LSP/ESADI-LSP/

In Normative References section:
"[RFCfgl] - Eastlake, D., M. Zhang, P. Agarwal, R. Perlman, D. Dutt,
        "TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links): Fine-
        Grained Labeling", draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling, in RFC
        Ediotr's queue."
s/Ediotr's/Editor's/

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-trill-esadi-06.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA has questions about some of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

QUESTION: Are you requesting to create 3 new sub-registries in
the Trill Parameters registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/trill-parameters

?

This document asks us to make registrations in an "Interested VLANs sub-TLV and the Interested Labels sub-TLV" registry or registries. IANA has already completed the actions for the approved document rfc6326bis, and that document did not create any registries with that name. Is this name referring to another existing registry at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/

IANA can create the "Interested VLANs Flag Bits" and "Interested Labels Flag Bits" registries, but the notes in those registries appear to be directing users to a Sub-TLV registry that does not exist.

The existing Sub-TLV registries were given titles that refer to TLVs only by their values in the TLV Codepoint Registry, rather than by their names. However, the word "Interested" does not appear anywhere in the TLV Codepoint Registry.

IANA Question -> Could the authors provide URLs for the Sub-TLV registries in which registrations shold be made?

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL: ESADI (End Station Address Distribution Information) Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document:
- 'TRILL: ESADI (End Station Address Distribution Information) Protocol'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-04-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
  protocol provides least cost pair-wise data forwarding without
  configuration in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topologies and
  link technologies.  TRILL supports multi-pathing of both unicast and
  multicast traffic.  Devices that implement the TRILL protocol are
  called TRILL Switches or RBridges (Routing Bridges).

  ESADI (End Station Address Distribution Information) is an optional
  protocol by which a TRILL switch can communicate, in a Data Label
  (VLAN or Fine Grained Label) scoped way, end station addresses and
  other information to TRILL switches participating in ESADI for the
  relevant Data Label.  This document updates RFC 6325, specifically
  the documentation of the ESADI protocol, and is not backwards
  compatible.







The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-esadi/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-esadi/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2064/

draft-ietf-trill-esadi-06

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Standards Track as indicated on title page. This draft updates
  Proposed Standard RFC 6325 as described in Appendix A. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  ESADI (End Station Address Distribution Information) is an optional
  protocol implemented at TRILL switches by which they can
  communicate, in a Data Label (VLAN or Fine Grained Label) scoped
  way, end station addresses and other information to TRILL switches
  in the TRILL campus participating in ESADI for that Data Label.
  This document updates the specification of the ESADI protocol that
  appears in RFC 6325, the TRILL base protocol specification, and is
  not backwards compatible because it changes the format of
  ESADI-LSPs.

Working Group Summary:

  There was no particular controversy. Before the initial WG Last Call
  on the -02 draft there was a late IPR disclosure filed. There were
  WG Last Call comments leading to editorial and technical changes
  resulting in the 03 draft which was determine to have WG consensus.
  The -03 draft increased the number of fragments in an ESADI-LSP and, as a
  result of document Shepherd review, the WG was asked if it wanted
  to change to the standard method for doing this which was
  progressing as draft-ietf-isis-fs-lsp. Based on WG support for this
  change, a -04 draft was produced and a 2nd WG LC starting on 27
  November 2013. During this WG LC a specific technical problem with
  a corner case was uncovered and it was suggested that an expanded
  explanation of how this document will update the TRILL base
  specification [RFC6325] should be included. A fix to this technical
  problem and the expanded "updates" explanation were included in in
  the -05 draft which was WG Last Called on 8 Feb 2014 and determined
  to have consensus.

Document Quality:

  The shepherd doesn't know of existing implementations. There has been
  significant review of this document on the TRILL WG mailing list with
  multiple WG last calls.

Personnel:

  Document Shepherd: Erik Nordmark
  Responsible Area Director: Ted Lemon

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The shepherd re-reviewed the documents in its entirety. The document
  is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is
uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns
whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.

  No special concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP
78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.

  Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

  See IETF IPR disclosure 2064. Specific attention was drawn to this
  disclosure in the WG Last Call announcement.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  The working group consensus is solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
iscontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.

  No idnits warnings other than the expect downref ones (for IS-IS, FIPS180,
  and ASCII)

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  This document has normative references to three drafts. Of those,
  two from the TRILL WG are already in the RFC Editor's queue. The
  third is in WG Last Call in the ISIS WG.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)?

  There are no downward normative references, but there are
  references to three non-IETF standards: ANSI X3.4-1968 (ASCII),
  FIPS 180-4, and ISO/IEC 10589:2002 (IS-IS).

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

  The document updates RFC 6325, as listed on the title page, but
  does not change the status of RFC 6325 which will remain a Proposed
  Standard.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with
the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in
IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226).

  The IANA considerations section specifies the creation of three new
  sub-registries and is consistent with the body of the document. The
  sub-registries have reasonable names, initial content, and a specified
  allocation procedure (IETF Review).

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would
find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  The document does not create any Expert Review allocations.
  (It does create new sub-registries within the TRILL Parameters
  Register which require IETF Review.)

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  The document does not use any such formal languages.