IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ioam] [EXT] Updated IOAM Proposed Charter

Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <talmi@marvell.com>
X-Original-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ioam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4CE7129A64 for <ioam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 06:26:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 9fqHYab_q5iI for <ioam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 06:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-0016f401.pphosted.com (mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com [67.231.148.174]) (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 28504129A63 for <ioam@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 06:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0045849.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v1EEKAkS024255; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 06:26:29 -0800
Received: from il-exch01.marvell.com ([199.203.130.101]) by mx0a-0016f401.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28j0urh6aw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 06:26:28 -0800
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com (10.4.102.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:26:24 +0200
Received: from IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36]) by IL-EXCH01.marvell.com ([fe80::5d63:81cd:31e2:fc36%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:26:24 +0200
From: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <talmi@marvell.com>, "ioam@ietf.org" <ioam@ietf.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana) (aretana@cisco.com)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [EXT] [Ioam] Updated IOAM Proposed Charter
Thread-Index: AQHShs5SGmJjQ7+F4UiYBvnqXVdwkg==
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:26:24 +0000
Message-ID: <dfc15b6a84a743d997595e040547346f@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com>
References: <adeb1814acd74ebaafe10d4a5086ba0f@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com>
In-Reply-To: <adeb1814acd74ebaafe10d4a5086ba0f@IL-EXCH01.marvell.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.4.102.210]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_dfc15b6a84a743d997595e040547346fILEXCH01marvellcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-02-14_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1612050000 definitions=main-1702140142
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/Zpgp08uhngeVonHboXZM9hG5H8Q>
Subject: Re: [Ioam] [EXT] Updated IOAM Proposed Charter
X-BeenThere: ioam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion on In-Situ OAM <ioam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ioam/>
List-Post: <mailto:ioam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ioam>, <mailto:ioam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:26:36 -0000

Hi,

Another issue that was raised by Stephen:


>1) I'm sure there are good things one can do with such marking, but it is very

>unclear to me how this proposal doesn't also fall afoul of all the privacy

>downsides of the SPUD/PLUS proposal. My understanding of those privacy

>downsides was that any generic/extensible marking scheme (whether of packets

>or transport connections/flows) could easily be abused in many privacy

>unfriendly ways. Note that I'm not claiming there is IETF consensus on that but I

>do claim it was a significant issue for SPUD/PLUS and would like to know why

>(and hope) it is not an issue here. Can someone help me understand what's

>different here so we avoid that same kind of mega-debate?


To address this in the charter, I propose to add the following text to the list of items the WG will work on:

* Security aspects of in-situ OAM, including the potential vulnerabilities of integrating hop-by-hop information to en-route traffic, and measures that should be taken to mitigate them.


Again, comments will be welcome.

Cheers,
Tal.


From: Ioam [mailto:ioam-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tal Mizrahi
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 4:48 PM
To: ioam@ietf.org
Subject: [EXT] [Ioam] Updated IOAM Proposed Charter

External Email
________________________________
Hi,

The charter draft has been updated based on the comments received on the last few days:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ioam/

The main changes compared to the previous draft:

-          A few terminology and phrasing changes based on comments received on the list.

-          New text regarding the encapsulations that the working group will initially focus on.

-          Updated the text about consultation with other working groups.

-          New text about cooperation with other standard bodies.

Comments will be welcome.

Thanks,
Tal.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email