[ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 29 June 2022 13:35 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6D6C15C7E3; Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, tpauly@apple.com, tpauly@apple.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.5.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <165650970103.26802.4827736487653043157@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 06:35:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/dhuFF4TzbEY6Vo6CKWn-NeGhDGk>
Subject: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 29 Jun 2022 13:35:01 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-09: 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-direct-export/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It isn’t clear whether DEX can be exported outside of the IOAM domain. If it can, more is needed to describe the implications. There are the following related statements: (a) Section 3.1.2 says: Exported packets SHOULD NOT be exported over a path or a tunnel that is subject to IOAM direct exporting. (b) Section 6 says: IOAM is assumed to be deployed in a restricted administrative domain, thus limiting the scope of the threats above and their affect. This is a fundamental assumption with respect to the security aspects of IOAM, as further discussed in [RFC9197]. (c) Section 6 says: Although the exporting method is not within the scope of this document, any exporting method MUST secure the exported data from the IOAM node to the receiving entity. Specifically, an IOAM node that performs DEX exporting MUST send the exported data to a pre- configured trusted receiving entity. Furthermore, an IOAM node MUST gain explicit consent to export data to a receiving entity before starting to send exported data. Statement (b) is the usual caveat that IOAM traffic stays inside the domain. However, this new option type is something different – there are the packets themselves and the telemetry generated from them (i.e., the export packets). Statement (c) is clear and helpful but doesn’t resolve if these entities are in the IOAM domain. Statement (a) seems to mitigation for not creating loops but like (c) silent on clarifying whether in the IOAM domain. If export can only happen in the IOAM domain, consider adding something as simple as the following in the Security Considerations: NEW: DEX exporting MUST NOT be to entities outside of the IOAM domain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Stephen Farrell for the SECDIR review.
- [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Martin Duke