[ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: 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-ioam-conf-state/



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

Section 6.

   A deployment can increase security by using border filtering of
   incoming and outgoing echo requests/replies.

Thanks for calling out the security impact of echo request/replies.  Since the
cited RFC9197 reminds the reader that a “network operator is expected to
enforce policies that prevent IOAM traffic from leaking outside of the
IOAM-Domain”, why is this guidance not mandatory?

Would the following text be more appropriate?

NEW
A deployment MUST ensure that border filtering drops inbound echo requests with
a IOAM Capabilities Container Header from outside of the domain, and drops
outbound echo request/replies with IOAM Capabilities Headers leaving the domain.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Chris Lonvick for the SECDIR review.

Section 3.1.  Typo. s/begining/beginning/

Section 6.  Typo. s/securiy/security/