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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 17 April 2024 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 2CD87C14F6B8 for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 oTaBxv99MKJP for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-x1136.google.com (mail-yw1-x1136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1136]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59DBBC14F696 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-x1136.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-617e42a3f94so55407667b3.2 for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1713349339; x=1713954139; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L3DDa42Ya/Ox7kLdkgiaTlqFwBG0ZICIBhjTXJiee7E=; b=RSZHF7MmA6xyl3TuFxpLBxdVYfFdqELISks8IYeryyv5s5ez0uy20vmFHruOf56Dp2 It832ItVTTuBHRlWVlzWFofwc61f5btKS8bgm3vpndQhRi5e2hmE9J2xTFpn02nDgICj Z1qBB7Wn+5WNaDXGEPSJ2+a5iAS5+VNgDfCPi2INTd5hz/VUUnoWYIIrge+UqDwoHT7i 0eShfaH8+tDZdscR8krpvVMve4OMATeVfaa0zfNab1VvWHYYyPyA0ZHhVHT3WIqiPgeh l11+u97GL99ZEwjJbyXB6hNCe2/kSLXREYxuZCVefgzp1AB841dM24LCSgOktVs2HGAI ZTaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713349339; x=1713954139; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=L3DDa42Ya/Ox7kLdkgiaTlqFwBG0ZICIBhjTXJiee7E=; b=sctCf5KF8utkjLwDT0R1yAB9XRQZMNNKOnbHw5ExHmOqvdlLjPGpinhldSC0jHII7Y YKMu0gZ4O55oaF2khycZMy6hCTpW0uehIiJGWQaIMC8ZouO/ptxeZg78Ukv0pyfKv2w7 HkgCTnAPhozKNOtucXed5VS8BD0GRN6Mq7QcxEXnjiMWHe7hg9SJLSR/Mpm6sFwlYCcA /FKynImQMa1y3xUQJiz1Uvw8kPlT/yTXz4wWdCfAJTjOEA4Dti5yxIehCYb7rv1Oepvb 9Cx4xRHJvC/O3tLFshQszmv2kXVPMWbjD+IS+GpB93P2OAGA8NpmbsnDXI7Q7z5x72se c71Q==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXgxNSIQ/LH9TDlvtKVVtvQp12krdXXxZJw2gFRX+YvTOr/qEY26aRrfeNJFuC3APm+Y44HSJIaU8XqBbTq
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw5ROLbkQ2UJgSO1E06VFBrg78DqeBdJBRB6nmOIEG8bi+Eds8a COUyNb34wlmBEzubo/0fyLJK84QOmr4X5yh3iwEl30GX4/M4MkkZOGGUAT4LV5nEiHS0Lufiyp+ nTNA9hziVQ7NQgY9S5xUSa7074wwLHM6C
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGmEWmDQ3GPZGBIDhEjdUdONRdo+x3YO3+weeMMuGOfOnkYBs8RHihiqUO5toKQF/wqUzMGU1ey5G4IFeETCAU=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:b047:0:b0:615:41a4:1a8a with SMTP id x7-20020a81b047000000b0061541a41a8amr14908690ywk.25.1713349339125; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <EB9C8A72-2118-4D5F-8A49-BB6CC327297F@apple.com> <CABUE3Xm+9Tbx9Pn0rdtuqoRsOQuR4cdUjMzqb2pOsQLqyrn_VQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABUE3Xm+9Tbx9Pn0rdtuqoRsOQuR4cdUjMzqb2pOsQLqyrn_VQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:22:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUesn=FvoEvXBvRFYKA7dLhmKq6UuUTtq4FTU8cd-4Lhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "IETF IPPM WG (ippm@ietf.org)" <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc24290616483abd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/dcsr5YV1bfa14qTKOLLnTkjOQPo>
Subject: Re: [ippm] IPPM adoption call for draft-mirsky-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:22:24 -0000

Hi Tal,
thank you for your kind words and support of this work.
Your suggestions are greatly appreciated and we'll work on incorporating
them in the future updates of the document.

Kind regards,
Greg

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 3:56 PM Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I believe that an asymmetric exchange in STAMP has value, and
> therefore I support the adoption of this document.
> I share the concerns raised on this thread regarding the potential of
> amplification attacks, and I believe this will need to be resolved,
> but not necessarily before WG adoption.
>
> I have the following suggestions about mitigating the amplification
> concerns:
> - The security considerations section should be more detailed and
> discuss the potential for amplification and DDoS attacks, including an
> upper bound on the order of magnitude of amplification.
> - The "Number of the Reflected Packets" and "Interval Between the
> Reflected Packets" should be reconsidered. Maybe consider a way to
> limit them to a sufficiently small "Number" and large "Interval".
> - Regarding amplification and how to mitigate it, you may want to take
> a look at RFC9322 and RFC9326, as we had many discussions about
> amplification when we were working on these documents.
>
> Cheers,
> Tal.
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:37 PM 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
>