I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-07
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 14 Sep 2015
IETF LC End Date: past
IESG Telechat date: 17 Sep 2015

Summary: On the right track, but has issues that should be discussed



I can't find any response to the LC review provided below. Apologies if 


I'm just failing to find or remember a thread...






Reviewing the diff between -06 and -07, I see some text in the 


introduction that


touches point 1. I think, however, it would be good to have something 


more strongly



prescriptive.



There's also new text in 5.2 that looks like it's targeting point 4, and 


I think it's sufficient.




The other points do not appear to be addressed.

RjS

On 6/4/15 2:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-06
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 04Jun15
IETF LC End Date: 11Jun15
IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled

Summary: On the right track, but has issues that should be discussed



This draft reads easily, but there are a few things that might need 


more attention.


It could be that these have been beaten to death already, but if so, 


it would be better if the document gave pointers to places where 


others with the questions wouldn't be left wondering.




Issues:



1) The document recommends hard-coding these addresses into 


applications. In the spirit (at least) of BCP 105 (RFC4085), shouldn't 


the recommendation be more "have their configuration set by default to 


this well known value"?






2) Section 3 punts on some really hard things that deserve more 


discussion in this document, or this document should point to a good 


discussion elsewhere. It's fine that the document doesn't solve the 


synchronization or coordination problems it hints at, but it should 


make it more clear that these problems will exist, and are important 


to consider when deploying a new node that joins this anycast address. 


In particular, without careful synchronization and coordination, 


applications like VoIP using PCP controlled resources will be 


disrupted. The current text really does not convey that message.






3) Aren't there some new security issues with just having the 


well-known address? At a minimum, it's an attractive target, and the 


guidance in 18.3.1 of RFC6887 may be particularly relevant. More 


subtly, would it make it easier to construct packets that look enough 


like PCP to be disruptive to send from compromised nodes participating 


in a DDos Attack from inside an administrative domain? Would it make 


it easier for an attacker that has partially compromised a host 


influence the firewall between him and that host, making finishing the 


compromise even easier? (Especially compared to a PCP server that was 


configured at the client that wasn't just the default router).






4) It would help to expand on the 3rd paragraph of section 5.2. In 


very simple scenarios (like having a home router start responding to 


this address), it's easy to see the tradeoffs between automatic 


configuration and securing the pcp commands. But it would help if the 


document talked through the consequences of not using 


pcp-authentication in more complex environments (using something like 


a departmentalized university, or several distinct administrative 


domains behind a common CGN as an example perhaps?)