Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Tue, 12 July 2022 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023EBC14F5E1; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 06:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4REMSFeyPBU2; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 06:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAA70C1388CE; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 06:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Lj1Dm3cyHz6HJVg; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 21:04:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:06:03 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:06:03 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis@ietf.org>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "tpauly@apple.com" <tpauly@apple.com>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHYlU/qIv59j0glvkibVQ9xnwjr4616myyQ
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:06:02 +0000
Message-ID: <45a39b8de8db4a0091b4cee3fe5e0754@huawei.com>
References: <165756233881.5762.14660297942906350580@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <165756233881.5762.14660297942906350580@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.220.147]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Du2gxYz0XmgqViWurmfV3RjQWow>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:07:28 -0000

Hi Roman,
Thank you for the review.
Please find my reply inline tagged as [GF].
I will publish a new version to address this point.

Best Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:59 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; tpauly@apple.com; tpauly@apple.com
Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please clarify the expected deployment model of this approach.

(a) Section 7.1

   For security reasons, the Alternate Marking Method is RECOMMENDED
   only for controlled domains.

(b) Section 10
   This document specifies a method to perform measurements in the
   context of a Service Provider's network and has not been developed to
   conduct Internet measurements, so it does not directly affect
   Internet security nor applications that run on the Internet.

The text in (a) suggests that deployment can occur on the Internet (although it
isn’t recommended).  However, (b) and other documents out of IPPM (e.g.,
RFC9197) seem to suggest that OAM meta-data must be filtered.

[GF]: I will revise the text in (a) and replace it with: "For security reasons, the Alternate Marking Method MUST only be applied in controlled domains."