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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Wed, 16 December 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E77D3A0A29; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 09:44:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54-GVb_7db5A; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 09:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506B93A07EA; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 09:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 0BGHXvcW036362; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:44:19 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 35f241uwvt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:44:18 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 0BGHiHpN094859; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:44:18 -0600
Received: from zlp30494.vci.att.com (zlp30494.vci.att.com [135.46.181.159]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 0BGHiEeB094770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:44:14 -0600
Received: from zlp30494.vci.att.com (zlp30494.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30494.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 67CAB4009E73; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:44:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from tlpd252.dadc.sbc.com (unknown [135.31.184.157]) by zlp30494.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 4C2E34009E6E; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:44:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd252.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 0BGHiELv106035; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:44:14 -0600
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by tlpd252.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 0BGHi4vn105548; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 11:44:05 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas1.research.att.com [135.207.255.86]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDC110A18FB; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:44:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njmtcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::e881:676b:51b6:905d%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:44:04 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWFsacWhYSBWdcSNaW5pxIc=?= <malisa.vucinic@inria.fr>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bmwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03
Thread-Index: AQHW0tWfW/48KRvlBkmQMYKHh09ZYqn4I0XwgABl5oD///zl4IABdBkAgAADeHA=
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:44:04 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF014766FD79@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <160803178079.7403.9358014699248845740@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF014766EE92@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <5C525F90-FAB1-46D9-A399-8AB493345A48@inria.fr> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF014766F108@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CB567540-9150-4310-8251-9BAC0427C746@inria.fr>
In-Reply-To: <CB567540-9150-4310-8251-9BAC0427C746@inria.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [24.148.42.167]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-12-16_07:2020-12-15, 2020-12-16 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2012160113
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/uGYSZaAHdzxzsnzRJUmVq9X63K4>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bmwg-b2b-frame-03
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:44:22 -0000

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>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
> 
> 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>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$
>     >
>     >
> 
> 
>