Archive

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>om>; 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$
> 
> 