Split Network Virtualization Edge (Split-NVE) Control-Plane Requirements
draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-17

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  In light of Spectre and Meltdown, I am wondering if there needs to be more explicit text in the draft on tenant isolation.

Could you expand the pros and cons of the choices listed out in the security considerations section in the following sentence?  Additional context would be helpful for the reader.

  One design point is whether the hypervisor
  should supply the NVE with necessary information (e.g., VM addresses,
  VN information, or other parameters) that the NVE uses directly, or
  whether the hypervisor should only supply a VN ID and an identifier
  for the associated VM (e.g., its MAC address), with the NVE using
  that information to obtain the information needed to validate the
  hypervisor-provided parameters or obtain related parameters in a
  secure manner.

Since the communications happen in multiple ways, I'm wondering how isolation is considered for each.  I see the text on authentication, ACLs and filter rules and that is all good, but I'm wondering if more is needed (firmer wording specific to isolation, etc.).  From the intro:

  In such cases, there is
  no need for a standardized protocol between the hypervisor and NVE,
  as the interaction is implemented via software on a single device.
  While in the Split-NVE architecture scenarios, as shown in figure 2
  to figure 4, control plane protocol(s) between a hypervisor and its
  associated external NVE(s) are required for the hypervisor to
  distribute the virtual machines networking states to the NVE(s) for
  further handling. The protocol is an NVE-internal protocol and runs
  between tNVE and nNVE logical entities. This protocol is mentioned in
  the NVO3 problem statement [RFC7364] and appears as the third work
  item.

Sect 4:  The authentication requirement could be stronger, is there a reason it isn't?
  Req-11: The protocol MUST allow the External NVE to authenticate the
  End Device connected.

If this is not in software as one option provides, there is no statement on encrypted sessions, is there a reason why this is not needed?

I also don't see a requirement on logging, should there be one?  If not, why not?
Are there security policy management functions that would need to track the connections between tenant systems and external NVEs to prove isolation or track the paths?

I do see this in Sect 3.2:
  An external NVE may report the mappings of its underlay IP
  address and the associated TSI addresses to NVA and relevant network
  nodes may save such information to their mapping tables but not their
  forwarding tables.

Is more needed?  Maybe not, but if you could explain or adjust text and possibly the requirements, I'd appreciate it.

[Ballot comment]
Substantive Comments:

§1.2: It would be helpful to see the TSI labeled in the figures.

§6: Are there requirements for the tenant system to ensure that it is connecting to the correct nNVE?

Editorial Comments and Nits:

§1: Please expand tNVE and nNVE

§6: "... that any hypervisor wishing to use the services of an NVE are properly authorized..."
plural disagreement (s/ are / is

§7: IANA (weakly) recommends that the IANA section be retained even when empty. (It's still the authors' call.)

§9: "merger from the drafts"
s/from/of

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-02-20):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: nvo3@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req@ietf.org, Matthew Bocci , akatlas@gmail.com, matthew.bocci@nokia.com, nvo3-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Split Network Virtualization Edge (Split-NVE) Control Plane Requirements) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Network Virtualization Overlays WG
(nvo3) to consider the following document: - 'Split Network Virtualization
Edge (Split-NVE) Control Plane
  Requirements'
  as Informational RFC

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 2018-02-20. 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


  In a Split Network Virtualization Edge (Split-NVE) architecture, the
  functions of the NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) are split across a
  server and an external network equipment which is called an external
  NVE.  The server-resident control plane functionality resides in
  control software, which may be part of hypervisor or container
  management software; for simplicity, this document refers to the
  hypervisor as the location of this software.

  Control plane protocol(s) between a hypervisor and its associated
  external NVE(s) are used by the hypervisor to distribute its virtual
  machine networking state to the external NVE(s) for further handling.
  This document illustrates the functionality required by this type of
  control plane signaling protocol and outlines the high level
  requirements. Virtual machine states as well as state transitioning
  are summarized to help clarify the protocol requirements.






The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

draft-ietf-nvo3-hpvr2nve-cp-req-13.txt

Document Shepherd Write-Up

(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?

  Informational.
 
  This is appropriate as the draft describes a set of requirements for the control planee
  in a split NVE scenario. It provides some foundations for work in the IEEE to extend
  VDP for split-NVE NVO3 scenarios. It does not specify new protocols,
  protocol numbers/registries, or protocol rules.

  The intended status is properly indicated.

(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

In a Split Network Virtualization Edge (Split-NVE) architecture, the
  functions of the NVE (Network Virtualization Edge) are split across a
  server and an external network equipment which is called an external
  NVE.  The server-resident control plane functionality resides in
  control software, which may be part of hypervisor or container
  management software; for simplicity, this document refers to the
  hypervisor as the location of this software.

  Control plane protocol(s) between a hypervisor and its associated
  external NVE(s) are used by the hypervisor to distribute its virtual
  machine networking state to the external NVE(s) for further handling.
  This document illustrates the functionality required by this type of
  control plane signaling protocol and outlines the high level
  requirements. Virtual machine states as well as state transitioning
  are summarized to help clarify the protocol requirements.

Working Group Summary

  The document was developed to provide input from the IETF community to help guide
  the development of extensions for VDP (VSI Discovery and Configuration protocol) that
  took place in parallel at the IEEE. The draft also describes how VDP is applicable
  to these split-NVE scenarios.

  There are no IPR declarations on the draft .

     
Document Quality
   
  I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents
  WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a
  number of years. There was also close interaction between NVO3 and the IEEE during the
  development of the draft and VDP, including liaisons and presentations at NVO3 WG
  meetings by IEEE participants.

  The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need
  review.

   
Personnel

  The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com).
  The responsible Area Director is Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com).

(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 document shepherd reviewed v11 of the document. I had no significant technical
  comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in
  version 13.

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

  No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has
  been developed within the WG and reviewed over a
  period of a number of IETFs.

(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 further review required.

(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 specific 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. If not, explain why.

  Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that
  they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance
  with BCP 78 and 79.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  There are no IPR declarations on the draft.


 
(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?

    I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has
    been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. It received a
    number of comments and significant discussion in WG last call that
    were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and
    comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward.
    Prior to the WG last call, a call for interest was conducted which also demonstrated
    consensus in the value of progressing the draft.
   

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? 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.)

  None indicated.

(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.

      ID-Nits passes.


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

  There are no relevant formal review criteria.

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

  Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative or normative.

(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?

  No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

  No.

(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? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(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).

  There are no IANA actions.

(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.

  There are no IANA actions.

(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.

  There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing.