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

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
>