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

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