Re: [ippm] IPPM adoption call for draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts

Hi Sebastian,
thank you for your interest in the draft, and your questions. It is noted
in the Security Considerations section regarding the risks of using the
Reflected Test Packet Control TLV:
   Furthermore, spoofed STAMP test
   packets with the Reflected Test Packet Control TLV can be exploited
   to conduct a Denial-of-Service attack.  Hence, implementations MUST
   use an identity protection mechanism.  For example, verify the
   information about the source of the STAMP packet against a pre-
   defined list of trusted nodes.  Also, STAMP authentication mode
   [RFC8762] or HMAC TLV [RFC8972] could be used for a STAMP test
  session containing the Reflected Test Packet Control TLV.

   Considering the potential number of reflected packets that can be
   generated by a single test packet sent to a Multicast address, when
   sending such messages a Session-Sender SHOULD sign packets using the
   HMAC TLV.

Certainly, other methods can be discussed and the section expanded
accordingly. I hope that you agree with that and will support the adoption
of this draft by the IPPM WG.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:49 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0=
40gmx.de@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Dear IPPM,
>
> a quick question, why does the security considerations section not
> explicitly mention the potential to use this for amplification attacks?
> This might be obvious, but neither this draft nor the drafts cited in
> security considerations mentions this.
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
> > On 9. Apr 2024, at 18:27, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello IPPM,
> >
> > This email starts an adoption call for
> draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts. This is a document we’ve discussed
> several times, and is a normative dependency for another document we
> discussed adopting at IETF 119, draft-gandhi-ippm-stamp-ext-hdr.
> >
> > You can find the draft here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts/
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-04.html#name-reflected-test-packet-control
> >
> > Please review the draft and respond to this email to indicate if you
> think IPPM should adopt this document as a working group item.
> >
> > This call will last for 3 weeks. Please reply by Tuesday, April 30.
> >
> > Best,
> > Tommy & Marcus
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> ippm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
>