IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Status of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 31 May 2016 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B2F12D640 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKWOHG7Akt6Q for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB0212D8C9 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3rK4y13f2wz4K8; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-LkVU9JXAVN; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:35:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 31 May 2016 22:35:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DFA51677A53; Tue, 31 May 2016 16:35:48 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca DFA51677A53
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF2C4066B3C; Tue, 31 May 2016 16:35:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 16:35:48 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov>
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR09MB036547D5BC4DA85825E09EE0F0460@DM2PR09MB0365.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605311633310.16809@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <860C938B60E24C76A1749A1563D53A55@buildpc> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605301312210.8086@bofh.nohats.ca> <C2083AF9EC484C129737FE456527D2F4@buildpc> <6ECFA010-549C-45DF-9D88-3D916D706A0D@gmail.com> <CDE9E49B6A0C46C6BCA85D1450779D88@buildpc> <DM2PR09MB036547D5BC4DA85825E09EE0F0460@DM2PR09MB0365.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/pamH6albebECEr17cNGHqV4NpB8>
Cc: "ipsec@ietf.org" <ipsec@ietf.org>, Valery Smyslov <svanru@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Status of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 20:36:04 -0000

On Tue, 31 May 2016, Waltermire, David A. (Fed) wrote:

> From what I am reading, there isn't an interest in splitting puzzles out as experimental. If you feel strongly that puzzles should be split out into a separate experimental draft, please speak up. If we don't hear anything by Monday, June 6, we will begin making preparations to send the draft as-is to the IESG.

I still prefer the puzzles going into a seperate document, so we as an
implementor could say we implement the anti-ddos RFC without having to
explain we implement some parts and not other parts. I don't think this
matters much for the structure of the document, as it just puts Section
7 to 11 in a separate document.

> Since we are wrapping up the WGLC, please also consider this a final call for comments on the draft before we send it off.

Responding to this in a separate email.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email