IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0903E1AE082 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:06:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 qG0EHaP_Vmq6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:06:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22e.google.com (mail-pb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E7C1AE069 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id md12so11597054pbc.33 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:06:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=zeSLDn0HqT1AHcmZOjyg97DXicfmoIh01I9x1HSHk2g=; b=xlczNfBwanZrY5uFsPhbF2tOlJlwz6JZmxgo4K/aKeZQ0krGKx0ltzRe20SJlkBpeL L6/XTRPZgTh8FqiYFSis/EaMFAetsUfP3bcHzBzst5jZha5SR+xEf31/9aj2ehlL1vhG lhCJLeoT7X7CQ30C/Hq/Nh+NArMYQU3U2h8P5UZ8zBKONNRuiTOxFPW6+VD67T5j8TfB Djywa0uEtGvj2Wj8ffHmEiJolgxCoQB69WzbxGN869PfAVXABz/q1J1ztflHZVCMKI07 9dl5F2tZ0oipCjsUvFUodbu3s9XMJcneuoPb/YT5LsPB3lJrWu1nMLCVMSPM9Qnh2VPM wd2Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.197.36 with SMTP id ir4mr7999735pbc.96.1385600776373; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.59.1 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:06:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20131127084710.0dd761c0@resistor.net>
References: <E2DA1477-C86E-441E-A33D-D47A0D67AFF3@iab.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20131127084710.0dd761c0@resistor.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 02:06:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ89PxsBxZqG3e8ZfUsk9hNJXzNkmOfCm3_gSYHFThuAFDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IAB statement on draft-farrell-perpass-attack-00
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1c840138a4c04ec32527e"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 01:06:18 -0000

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013, SM wrote:

>
> In very simplistic terms the draft says:
>
>   "consensus to design protocols so as to mitigate the attack, where
>    possible."


What do our protocol designers think about that mitigation possibility and
about that protocol attack consideration?

Why the draft wants to recommend in a same/one design consideration of such
attack? We may have more design considerations of our protocols.

Does the draft explain "Mitigate the attack" in user favours? users will
think every thing is possible.

What does "where possible" mean here? Is it clear for readers or it is just
me?

The draft written as information and thoughts, so it should be
informational not BCP. If BCP it need to be more specific in making
technical mitigations and their possibilities clear.

AB

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email