Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): RBridge Channel Header Extension
draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-11

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-10.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are three actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the RBridge Channel Protocols subregistry of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry located at:

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

a single, new channel protocol will be registered as follows:

Protocol: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: RBridge Channel Extension
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the protocol number to be registered will be from the standards action range.

Second, a new registry called the RBridge Channel Error Codes registry will be created in the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry located at:

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

The new registry will be managed using IETF Review as defined by RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Code Meaning. Reference
----+-------------------------------------------------------------+--------
0 No error RFC 7178
1 Frame too short (truncated Ethertype or Channel Header) RFC 7178
2 Unrecognized Ethertype RFC 7178
3 Unimplemented value of CHV RFC 7178
4 Wrong value of NA flag RFC 7178
5 Channel Protocol is reserved or unimplemented RFC 7178
6 Unknown or unsupported field value [ RFC-to-be ]
7 Authentication failure [ RFC-to-be ]
8 Error in nested RBridge Channel message [ RFC-to-be ]
9-15 Unassigned
16 Reserved

Third, two additional sub-registries under the RBridge Channel Protocols registry located at:

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

Extended RBridge Channel Payload Types
Reference: [this doc]
Registration Procedure: IETF Review

PType Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 Reserved
1 Null Section 3.1 of [this doc]
2 Ethertyped Payload Section 3.2 of [this doc]
3 Ethernet Frame Section 3.3 of [this doc]
4-14 Unassigned
15 Reserved

Extended RBridge Channel Security Types
Reference: [this doc]
Registration Procedure: IETF Review

SType Description Reference
----- ----------- ---------
0 None Section 4.2 of [this doc]
1 [RFC5310]-Based Authentication Section 4.3 of [this doc]
2 DTLS Pairwise Security Section 4.4 of [this doc]
3 Composite Security Section 4.5 of [this doc]
4-14 Unassigned
15 Reserved

IANA understands that these three actions are the only ones that need to be completed upon approval of this document.

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. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL: RBridge Channel Header Extension) 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: RBridge Channel Header Extension'
  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 2016-07-21. 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 includes an optional mechanism (specified in RFC 7178)
  called RBridge Channel for the transmission of typed messages between
  TRILL switches in the same campus and the transmission of such
  messages between TRILL switches and end stations on the same link.
  This document specifies extensions to the RBridge Channel protocol
  header to support two features as follows: (1) a standard method to
  tunnel payloads whose type can be indicated by Ethertype through
  encapsulation in RBridge Channel messages; and (2) a method to
  support security facilities for RBridge Channel messages. This
  document updates RFC 7178.

There is a normative reference to RFC 5869, which is an Informational
RFC, so this is a DownRef to a document which isn't yet in the DownRef
Registry. This DownRef was missed during the first IETF Last Call, so
this is a new Last Call focused on the DownRef.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/ballot/


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

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL: RBridge Channel Header Extension) 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: RBridge Channel Header Extension'
  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 2016-07-21. 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 includes an optional mechanism (specified in RFC 7178)
  called RBridge Channel for the transmission of typed messages between
  TRILL switches in the same campus and the transmission of such
  messages between TRILL switches and end stations on the same link.
  This document specifies extensions to the RBridge Channel protocol
  header to support two features as follows: (1) a standard method to
  tunnel payloads whose type can be indicated by Ethertype through
  encapsulation in RBridge Channel messages; and (2) a method to
  support security facilities for RBridge Channel messages. This
  document updates RFC 7178.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/ballot/


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

[Ballot discuss]
Even though the IANA Considerations section was just updated (in version -10), I am putting in this DISCUSS because it is still incomplete/incorrect.

1. Guidance for managing the SubERR namespace should be included.  Note that this document only specifies values for ERR 6, but guidance should be given to IANA for the other ERR values as well.

2. Section 6.2.1 (RBridge Channel Error Codes Subregistry) requests the creation of a new registry ("RBridge Channel Error Codes”), but that registry was already created by RFC7178.  This document should then split the requests in two parts: assignment of the vales 6-8, and the change to the registration procedure.

[Ballot comment]
From Section 2. (RBridge Channel Header Extension Format), is the RESV4 field a space that is reserved for potential future use?  Why isn’t it ignored on receipt (similar to the RESV field in Section 4.3)?  If there is potential for use of this space (RESV is defined as 4 bits, which makes me think about potential bit-level allocations), then there should be some guidance in the IANA Considerations.

[Ballot comment]

- The write up for this and the other trill docs on this
telechat talks about "directory services" but that's not
mentioned in any of the drafts. Pointers to RFC7067 would
probably have saved me a few minutes:-)

- That RFC5869 is not in the downref registry is odd.  I'd
say we should just add it there. It's true though that I
think this seems to be the first stds track doc with it as
normative [1] but I figure it's safe to add with no new LC
stuff.

  [1] http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc5869.html

(Apologies that there's no TLS for [1] :-)

- 4.3: Can the verifier deterministically tell from the
context that the keyid here refers to the derived key as
defined in 4.1 and not to (what I guess is) a "bare" key as
per RFC5310? Do you need to say that?

- 4.4 or section 7: Do we know that there are no issues with
DTLS packets exceeding the MTU but where implementations
won't work, perhaps with a cert chain. DTLS does support
that, but do implementations that are likely to be used
here? If not, maybe a warning is needed. Or, do you need to
warn against cert based ciphersuites on the basis that
nobody knows what to put in certs for trill? Given that you
are (wisely) punting on group communication, maybe you could
also say that only PSK ciphersuites are to be used here for
now, and then also address cert based ciphersuites when you
get around to figuring out group keying?

- section 7, 3rd para: I do worry a bit about that, but
you've called out the risk I guess. If it were possible to
add more guidance as to how to defend in depth that'd be
good I guess.

[Ballot comment]
The reference to RFC 5869 is a normative downref. It's, not mentioned in the last call announcement, nor in the downref registry. I leave it to the AD and authors to decide if that is okay.

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are two actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the RBridge Channel Protocols subregistry of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry located at:

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

a single, new channel protocol will be registered as follows:

Protocol: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: RBridge Channel Extension
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the protocol number to be registered will be from the standards action range.

Second, a new registry called the RBridge Channel Error Codes registry will be created in the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Parameters registry located at:

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

The new registry will be managed using IETF Review as defined by RFC 5226. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Code Meaning. Reference
----+-------------------------------------------------------------+--------
0 No error RFC 7178
1 Frame too short (truncated Ethertype or Channel Header) RFC 7178
2 Unrecognized Ethertype RFC 7178
3 Unimplemented value of CHV RFC 7178
4 Wrong value of NA flag RFC 7178
5 Channel Protocol is reserved or unimplemented RFC 7178
6 Unknown or unsupported field value [ RFC-to-be ]
7 Authentication failure [ RFC-to-be ]
8 Error in nested RBridge Channel message [ RFC-to-be ]
9-15 Unassigned
16 Reserved

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones that need to be completed upon approval of this document.

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. 


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel@ietf.org, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com, akatlas@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TRILL: RBridge Channel Header Extension) 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: RBridge Channel Header Extension'
  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 2016-07-01. 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 includes an optional mechanism (specified in RFC 7178)
  called RBridge Channel for the transmission of typed messages between
  TRILL switches in the same campus and the transmission of such
  messages between TRILL switches and end stations on the same link.
  This document specifies extensions to the RBridge Channel protocol
  header to support two features as follows: (1) a standard method to
  tunnel payloads whose type can be indicated by Ethertype through
  encapsulation in RBridge Channel messages; and (2) a method to
  support security facilities for RBridge Channel messages. This
  document updates RFC 7178.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel/ballot/


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

Based on Shepherd template: 2/24/2012
Date of Revision: 2/8/2016
Authors: Donald Eastlake, Mohammed Umair, Yizhou Li
Document Shepherd: Susan Hares
WG chairs: Susan Hares, Jon Hudson
AD: Alia Atlas
Reviews done: TRILL document shepherd,
Reviews requested: RTG-Directorate review
- Trill WG Waited 6 months (August to February)
with no review or clear indicate when it will occur.

1) Type of RFC: Proposed Standard
a) Why is this the proper type of RFC? Modifies a TRILL standard (RFC7178)
b) Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. 

Technical Summary

  The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
  protocol includes an optional mechanism, called RBridge Channel, that
  is specified in RFC 7178, for the transmission of typed messages
  between TRILL switches in the same campus and between TRILL switches
  and end stations on the same link. This document specifies two
  optional extensions to the RBridge Channel protocol: (1) A standard
  method to tunnel a variety of payload types by encapsulating them in
  an RBridge Channel message; and (2) A method to support security
  facilities for RBridge Channel messages. This document updates RFC
  7178.
 
Working Group Summary

WG Issue is part of the directory services work which
has received discussion over 2 years.  The WG has strong
consensus after this lengthy discussion on the problem
and the set of drafts for the solution (draft )

Document Quality

a) Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
No, and this draft is part of a 4 draft directory service dealing
with directory services.  The four drafts are:
draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms () - describes the push/pull
draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel-05 - secure tunnel for directory push
draft-ietf-trill-ia-appsubtlv-05 - reporting of addresses for TRILL interfaces
    in ISIS application sub-TLV (reduces/replaces need for ARP/ND )
draft-ietf-trill-arp-optimization - mechanism to optimize ARP and ND traffic
    on TRILL campus

b) Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?
 
  Directory service mechanism are currently implemented as proprietary
  fashions by every vendor that does some variant of TRILL (cisco, brocade, Huawei
  and others).  Until we get a full standard solution approved, the
  existing vendors with "early TRILL" implementations have little reason
  to switch.

  Huawei is planning implementations. Potentially Brocade and Cisco
  could switch to these mechanisms, but unless IETF standards are out
  as a set - this may not occur. 
 
c) Are there any reviewers that  merit special mention as having
  done a thorough review,
  c-1) shepherd review thread:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/NZ8vNTic0FwG3UUc-x1Oj7QKlew
  Comments were satisfied with the -06 of this draft as shown:
  Authors response to shepherd:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/RnbMobG6zI1aV8ViTKbOA1QM8q8
Shepherd's ok:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/-_1uigPg0-yZ7wXEjFfZpI45dQU

  c-1) routing-QA review:  Waited from
  c-2) OPS-DIR review: OPS-DIR early review requested due to tunnel, no takers.
  c-3) IANA QA Review:  IANA pre-review indicated OK. 
  C-4) SAAG QA Review: Completed

d) Personnel for QA review 
  d-1: document shepherd review: Susan Hares
  d-2: routing QA reviewer:  No Reviewer assigned for 6 months.
  d-3: IANA QA review: Michele Cotton
  d-5: Security review: Yaron Sheffer

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

No - The WG Shepherd review and response on mail thread is sufficient
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/NZ8vNTic0FwG3UUc-x1Oj7QKlew

Other reviews are in progress.

(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? 
took place.
The following reviews should be done at IESG Review time:
  5-1: Routing Directorate
  5-2: OPS Directorate
  5-3: Security Directorate
  5-4: Gen-ART Review

(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? 

No 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.

All Authors
Mohammed:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/L8yQUydVMAYH-xjdHuY0Vw2YDpg
Donald:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=trill&qdr=y&q=draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel

Yizhou:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/gty-Gv-7de7YqXfjhi90AFbvAoY

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

None.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? 

This document is a part of the directory service work that
has gone on for 2-3 years.  The WG has discussed the issues
    and the solutions were discussed in several IETFs.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent?
No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
  NITS check shows that RFC3610 and RFC5869 are informative documents
  being used in as normative references.
 
  - RFC3610 specifies an cypher generic authenticated encryption
  block cipher mode that can be used with authentication
  and/or encryption functions.
  - RFC5869 - describes a HMAC-Based Extract and expand key
    derivation Function (HKFD) which can be used with SHA256
(described in RFC6234)
 
  These use of these two cypher suites is described in section 4,
  4.3, 4.5,and 4.7, and section 7.
 
  Section 4 discusses the use of CT-CCM based on RFC3610 recommendations
  for authentication (4.5) or authentication and encryption (section 4.7)
  Section 4.3 discussed the use of HKDF expansion of SHA256n to derive
  keys from IS-IS key plus the ascii text "Channel Tunnel" plus the
  single byte of the security type (see section 4 beginning).

  The shepherd feels this use of these drafts as part of a security
  encryption warrants a normative reference.  However, this is a
  point the AD should also review.

NITS also show the last revision was in 2015, but
the next revision of the draft will fix this issue.
I assume the AD Evaluation and routing final review will have comments.
 
 
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
12-1) No formal review for content beyond security review of
      security cypher suite usage, and IS-IS key material usage.

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

Yes - see above discusison in section 11.

(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.
rfc7180bis - is a normative reference, but this draft has been submitted
to the IESG for publication.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
see #14. 

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs?
16-1) RFC7178 as listed on the draft.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document.

IANA considerations were reviewed for:
a) expansion of current references,
b) correct new IANA registry form.

A QA Review request has been sent to IANA.

(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.

802 6.2 Channel Tunnel Crypto Suites

  IANA is requested to create a subregistry in the TRILL Parameters
  registry with the following information:

  Name: RBridge Channel Tunnel Crypto Suites
  Registration Procedures: Expert Review
  Reference: [this document]

    Value    Description      Reference
  -------  -------------    -----------
        0    Reserved
        1    CT-CCM          [this document]
  2-65534  available for assignment
    65535  Reserved

(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.

No other were necessary.