From: "Arun Arunachalam (carunach)" <carunach@cisco.com>
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-11
Thread-Topic: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-11
Thread-Index: AQHSbO9bbCtSiQ1pmUGC2nUSCFaAdqE9qnKA
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:20:11 +0000
Message-ID: <8CA648A4-7DDC-4EA7-B7B4-0BF69957DA83@cisco.com>
References: <148423783701.29293.15508238136822500989.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <148423783701.29293.15508238136822500989.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.155.254.159]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <FB6A9C2B56D955479D4B6EBE13EBFA92@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3kqkAnbLJb-sFB0YGQL4J4KjtEE>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>,
 "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>,
 "draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs.all@ietf.org"
 <draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs.all@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>,
 <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
 <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:20:14 -0000

Hi Dan,

Thanks for taking the time to review the LogMe requirements draft and provi=
ding feedback!

We will discuss about load related attacks and recommended approaches to mi=
tigate in LogMe solutions draft under security considerations section.=20

Thanks!
Arun

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready
>=20
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
>=20
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These=20
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
> aspects of the=20
> IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be
> included in AD reviews=20
> during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments=20
> just like any other last call comments.=20
>=20
>   This informational document describes requirements for adding an
> indicator to the SIP
>   protocol data unit (PDU, or a SIP message) that marks the PDU as a
>   candidate for logging.  Such marking will typically be applied as
>   part of network testing controlled by the network operator and not
>   used in regular client signaling.  However, such marking can be
>   carried end-to-end including the SIP terminals, even if a session
>   originates and terminates in different networks.
>=20
> It's a short, focused and well-written document. It is interesting for
> the operators of networks that use SIP, as this indicator can be used
> to trigger testing or debugging in the networks that they operate. It
> seems that different implications on security and network behavior
> were considered, although some of them are not explicitly mentioned -
> such as the potential overload or DoS attacks in case of
> mis-configuration or malicious configuration of a big number of
> terminals in a SIP network leading to simultaneous activation of debug
> modes. It may be good to explicitly mentions these, but otherwise this
> document is READY from an OPS-DIR perspective.=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list
> insipid@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid