Re: [Dots] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 05 March 2019 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E42126C7E; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 06:33:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 Eb7gl9dqWmZo; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 06:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (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 1576C124B0C; Tue, 5 Mar 2019 06:33:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessfw99-sesbfw99-92.ericsson.net ([192.176.1.92] helo=[10.156.247.140]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1h1B8O-0000Qy-2b; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 15:33:32 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA288D7@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 15:33:29 +0100
Cc: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>, "dots-chairs@ietf.org" <dots-chairs@ietf.org>, "frank.xialiang@huawei.com" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dots-requirements@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-requirements@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1CFA231F-A1C5-48EB-833A-49C466DE65BA@kuehlewind.net>
References: <155068522853.31498.10686203344983870104.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA23122@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <66BB8E3D-DEB6-43AC-AAEB-B6EB1A248865@kuehlewind.net> <BYAPR16MB2790CC0ED0E41B3551F7C93BEA7E0@BYAPR16MB2790.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <C44BC70E-6F50-4665-B3C0-ACDC93FAA344@kuehlewind.net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA288D7@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1551796418;6f64c094;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1h1B8O-0000Qy-2b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/BQq-8kuBi3fGbK4D169LzXxGAds>
Subject: Re: [Dots] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 14:33:41 -0000

Thanks!

> Am 05.03.2019 um 13:13 schrieb <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>:
> 
> Hi Mirja, 
> 
> This was fixed in -19. The new text says the following: 
> 
> OLD:
> 
> A security mechanism at the network layer (e.g.,
>      TLS) is thus adequate to provide hop-by-hop security.  In other
>      words, end-to-end security is not required for DOTS protocols.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> A security mechanism at the
>      transport layer (e.g., TLS) is thus adequate to provide security
>      between peer DOTS agents.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
>> Envoyé : mardi 5 mars 2019 12:39
>> À : Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
>> Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; dots-chairs@ietf.org;
>> frank.xialiang@huawei.com; dots@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-dots-
>> requirements@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [Dots] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-requirements-
>> 18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>> 
>> Hi Tiru, hi Med,
>> 
>> to catch up on this comment.
>> 
>>> Am 21.02.2019 um 15:23 schrieb Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>:
>>> 
>>>>>> One editorial comment on SEC-002:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "A security mechanism at the network layer (e.g.,
>>>>>>    TLS) is thus adequate to provide hop-by-hop security.  In other
>>>>>>    words, end-to-end security is not required for DOTS protocols."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> TLS is transport layer security (not network layer) and therefore
>>>>>> known as providing end-to-end security while the term hop-by-hop is used
>>>> for e.g.
>>>>>> IPSec.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would recommend to change the wording here in order to avoid
>>>>>> confusion, e.g.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "A security mechanism at the transport layer (e.g.,
>>>>>>    TLS) is thus adequate to provide security between different DOTS
>>>>>> agents.
>>>>>>    In other words, a direct security association between the server and
>>>>>>    client, excluding any proxy, is not required for DOTS protocols."
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Med] I disagree with the last part of the proposed wording. The DOTS
>>>> architecture involves gateways, hence the hop-by-hop security model.
>>>> 
>>>> This is not a technical comment. The technical content is correct.
>> However, as I
>>>> said above, the term hop-by-hop is associated by many people in the
>>>> community with something like IPSec, while application layer gateways are
>>>> rather considered as endpoints. All I'm requesting is to avoid the terms
>> end-to-
>>>> end and hop-by-hop in this context as it might be confusing to others.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> SEC-002 is modified in version 18 to add more details to address the
>> following comment from Robert Sparks (Genart review) :
>>> from Paragraph 3 of SEC-002: This paragraph doesn't read as sensibly when
>> you have the pictures of aggregating gateways from the architecture document
>> in mind.
>>> Does it constrain the types of connections that can be aggregated to those
>> that share equivalent security properties? If so, it should be explicit.
>> 
>> 
>> So, there are to point here:
>> 
>> 1) With the current text there is at least one mistake. It says
>> 
>> "A security mechanism at the network layer (e.g. TLS)…“
>> 
>> However, TLS is at actually at the application layer. So this needs
>> rewording.
>> 
>> 2) The other part of my comment was simply that the use of the term „end-to-
>> end“ and "hop-by-hop“ could be confusing as currently used (without much
>> explanation). I suggest initially to simply not use these term, however, you
>> could also say something like „hop-by-hop between an DOTS gateway and a DOTS
>> client or sever“ and end-to-end directly between the DOTS client and server“,
>> just to be very clear about this.
>> 
>> Mirja
>> 
>