Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-09
review-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-09-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2025-02-14-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-02-25 | |
| Requested | 2025-02-11 | |
| Authors | Parag Kaneriya , Tony Li , Tony Przygienda , Shraddha Hegde , Les Ginsberg | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-04-25 (Latest revision 2025-04-25) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -08
by Mach Chen
(diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Peter E. Yee (diff) Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Adrian Farrel (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by David Mandelberg (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | David Mandelberg |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/f5a6mbJUyGROxX4CCc0AhYF0vxE | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 18) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-02-14 |
review-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-09-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2025-02-14-00
Looks good, I think. The security considerations section doesn't have much detail, but this doc seems to be an extension of existing practice to additional TLVs in a way that wouldn't change the security considerations at all. The only security-relevant thing I could think of is around memory bounds and allocation in implementations. When going from limited-size fields to unlimited-size data across separate TLVs, I could imagine attacks that try to cause out of memory conditions on a router, or that try to overflow a fixed-size buffer. But this doc talks about existing TLVs that already work the same way, so I'm guessing that hasn't been an issue in practice, or has been mitigated? Do any of the existing docs talk about this? Or is there a size limit somewhere else (I'm not very familiar with IS-IS) that makes this a non-issue?