Re: [bmwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03

Sounds good, thanks!

Mališa

On 16/12/2020 18:44, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> wrote:

    Hi Mališa,

    Thanks for your proposed wording, it seems sufficiently neutral and with a few small tweaks, WFM.

    I see that Roman's COMMENT also supports this additional text.

    So, consider it part of the next version, and thanks for your help!
    Al

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Mališa Vučinić [mailto:malisa.vucinic@inria.fr]
    > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 7:22 AM
    > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>; secdir@ietf.org
    > Cc: last-call@ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-
    > frame.all@ietf.org
    > Subject: Re: [bmwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03
    > 
    > Al,
    > 
    > I don't have a strong opinion on using the term "honesty" here. How about
    > this phrasing, just before the last paragraph in Security Considerations:
    > 
    > The DUT developers are commonly independent from the personnel and
    > institutions conducting the benchmarking.
    > The DUT developers might have incentives to alter the performance of the
    > DUT if the test conditions are detected.
    > Procedures described in this document are not designed to detect such
    > activity.
    > Additional testing, outside of the scope of this document, is needed and
    > has been successfully used in the past to discover such malpractices.
    > 
    > Mališa
    > 
    > On 15/12/2020 20:22, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> wrote:
    > 
    >     Hi Mališa,
    >     please see below...
    > 
    >     > -----Original Message-----
    >     > From: Mališa Vučinić [mailto:malisa.vucinic@inria.fr]
    >     > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:21 AM
    >     > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>; secdir@ietf.org
    >     > Cc: last-call@ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-
    >     > frame.all@ietf.org
    >     > Subject: Re: [bmwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-
    > frame-03
    >     >
    >     > Hi Al,
    >     >
    >     > Thanks, that is clear. I think that discussing the assumption of
    > honesty
    >     > among the parties involved in benchmarking  would be a useful
    > addition to
    >     > the Security Considerations section in the draft.
    >     [acm]
    > 
    >     I don't mind explaining the requirement using the term "honesty", but
    > I can only imagine raised eyebrows and subsequent DISCUSS/comments if we
    > try to assert a need for/assumption of honesty anywhere in the memo.
    > 
    >     Do you have suggested wording?
    > 
    >     Do others have opinions whether or not this is needed?
    > 
    >     thanks,
    >     Al
    > 
    >     >
    >     > Mališa
    >     >
    >     > On 15/12/2020 14:45, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
    > wrote:
    >     >
    >     >     Hi Mališa,
    >     >     thanks for your review, please see below for one reply to your
    >     > question (acm].
    >     >     Al
    >     >
    >     >     > -----Original Message-----
    >     >     > From: bmwg [mailto:bmwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mališa
    >     > Vucinic via
    >     >     > Datatracker
    >     >     > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 6:30 AM
    >     >     > To: secdir@ietf.org
    >     >     > Cc: last-call@ietf.org; bmwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-
    >     >     > frame.all@ietf.org
    >     >     > Subject: [bmwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-
    > frame-
    >     > 03
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Reviewer: Mališa Vučinić
    >     >     > Review result: Ready
    >     >     >
    >     >     > I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's
    >     > ongoing
    >     >     > effort
    >     >     > to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
    > These
    >     > comments
    >     >     > were
    >     >     > written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area
    > Directors.
    >     > Document
    >     >     > authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat these
    > comments
    >     > just
    >     >     > like
    >     >     > any other IETF Last Call comments.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Thank you for this well-written document, it was a pleasure to
    > read
    >     > and I
    >     >     > think
    >     >     > it is ready to proceed. Since the document updates RFC2544
    >     > benchmarking
    >     >     > procedure for estimating the buffer time of a Device Under
    > Test
    >     > (DUT), it
    >     >     > does
    >     >     > not raise any security issues. Security Considerations section
    > is
    >     > quite
    >     >     > clear
    >     >     > and it stresses that these tests are performed in a lab
    > environment.
    >     >     >
    >     >     > I do have a question regarding the last paragraph of the
    > Security
    >     >     > Considerations on special capabilities of DUTs for
    > benchmarking
    >     > purposes.
    >     >     > Currently, the sentence reads: "Special capabilities SHOULD
    > NOT
    >     > exist in
    >     >     > the
    >     >     > DUT/SUT specifically for benchmarking purposes." Why is this a
    >     > SHOULD NOT
    >     >     > and
    >     >     > not a MUST NOT? Could you give an example when such special
    >     > capabilities
    >     >     > in a
    >     >     > DUT are appropriate?
    >     >     [acm]
    >     >     We can only make a strong recommendation in this area. As
    >     > testers/benchmarkers are often independent from the DUT developers
    > and
    >     > conduct testing external to the DUT, we assume honesty among other
    > parties
    >     > but we cannot require it. If someone constructed a DUT that
    > recognized
    >     > test conditions and operated differently to perform better somehow,
    > our
    >     > tests would measure the intended "better" performance. It takes a
    >     > special/additional test effort to prove that a DUT has "designed to
    > the
    >     > test" (consider Volkswagen and fuel efficiency testing [0]).
    >     >
    >     >     We simply do not have any authority in this matter, but we can
    > let all
    >     > parties know that gaming the test can be discovered and reported
    > (albeit
    >     > with more testing that we do not describe).
    >     >
    >     >     [0]
    > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.consumerreports.org/fuel-
    >     > economy-efficiency/volkswagen-used-special-software-to-exaggerate-
    > fuel-
    >     > economy/__;!!BhdT!0KS_VCF5ZQfIGkVyPLoJXuAxdcoS3-
    >     > xJTE0LoKZPWuSiHjQZM1u0H9M36YXByCk$
    >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     > _______________________________________________
    >     >     > bmwg mailing list
    >     >     > bmwg@ietf.org
    >     >     >
    >     >
    > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg__;!
    >     >     > !BhdT!1JFeLsENzMU-
    > ew89jxmJKxfp4wj5Zo3AZ6V8iULU3hWAentH1dymqJmDOvw7$
    >     >
    >     >
    > 
    > 
    > 