Re: [Detnet] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-security-10

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 06 August 2020 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E0D3A0AFF; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 05:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kv5Fgk3viEiw; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 05:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A06693A0AEA; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 05:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id k20so9567490wmi.5; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 05:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=hZVwcPROm8l145Uni4h/xUEN2SIpzbk+lu5pljKJr7g=; b=sd+aFCQSiGqbJ8oaiZW8YgTkyyqqtAHehwYK8kb4ZlrrMoUnqLDSSd+x6oX8KYjWPs 9Oz9zD0QS2EHgbLmgVUy7ZbHOzFzSFVlkFjETK7uiE5aUAcDNNpMM2EUhrfDIr7h8vTr 2+K5hIF5TSyu98O9j9gJ++qazvpQytQxSKgmSqASloBj8/se5cbYKyGNAobrBKBcmgS6 lPa7Sd1xvcnLXtNRTvfyZHbj+YgddpRLWDGsOWtMEGzooWemaXVw0Uicx1XVXDK+PYI8 r7zKh+aYZxMlc4sL4aoQkXE2lO+/2aXWnF+Jaa3GRY8ETSNnVdpf3klFzPsaOp1OVPgJ Sa/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=hZVwcPROm8l145Uni4h/xUEN2SIpzbk+lu5pljKJr7g=; b=j9TRdCc1Jm9YexCVCP6X8ox0QPY98k+EiWmGx7HrOEa9gAn2+Q2URpqRO3ii2ECIjx kIW/AoIyfWIvQTtVV9fG5xF0zBmLV2JRtJuH1wjp1PtHQvK8D5EEDK65xE/hXmKLcCgJ pJboe/slJvwbLjDD12l2sY8s+Ed4CN7Ie4Z84kUSkK0hxxw56S+cdgn3h/P1SVflPdT4 RDEnE4z8LCubV94JU7LOUnkt19+e0cCPr6dQxDuxkiBbv86RN/qTHk6cdYaC1tUj27GE QElIPOrryhrNmahk2IZXlSDTq7uvRgDW23YqZcpbMr2GE4jj8/OrqLpRBIqsp+MPBEBO uuzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530S3bp6IUbQBQQCluqhGe2dMqpgVx6tryyh7c6xgDDXZjvzG8Kl 7tOyhshxq1YFWzhilBTRe40=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAPRUqiyAlsJ2FYSf/xogzPPzlLGWowBnyWIaeHKWHcL6ox4w0B8ASC3iV1+wlK0ahrqTOCg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:59c2:: with SMTP id n185mr8308596wmb.104.1596718300008; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 05:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.27] ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t202sm6437702wmt.20.2020.08.06.05.51.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 05:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <159618704596.337.11731016034191108207@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 13:51:35 +0100
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-security.all@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org
Message-Id: <D9587519-FCD7-4046-AAF8-97E619D288C3@gmail.com>
References: <159618704596.337.11731016034191108207@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17F80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/D6ayRR7TfrrYQ3VAtvNSODz69Dk>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-security-10
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 12:51:43 -0000

> ---
> 
> It would be nice to avoid the term "man-in-the-middle" (and coresponding
> "MITM") in favour of the term "on-path attacker". It is less problematic
> as a term, and no less accurate.
> 
> Although "man-in-the-middle" is well established, I think you could
> easily avoid it and if you feel necessary you could use "An on-path
> attacker (formerly known as a man-in-the-middle) ..."

I sort of understand why you want to change MITM, although given that the man you have in mind is evil I am not sure whether it is that objectionable in this context. However I am not sure on-path is the right term. MITM normally implies an entity that can modify traffic in flight, whereas an on path attacker may simply be an observer.

Maybe AITM (attacker ....) would be a better gender neutral term.

Stewart