[mpls] Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 10:35 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Zaheduzzaman,
>
>
> Thanks for your review and comments.
>
> Please see inline.
> Original
> *From: *ZaheduzzamanSarkerviaDatatracker <[e-mail]>
> *To: *The IESG <[e-mail]>;
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;
> *Date: *2024年09月04日 14:54
> *Subject: **Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)*
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: 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-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for working on this specification.
>
>
> I have noted this specificaiton uses RFC 9341 performance measurement methods.
> RFC 9341 says -
>
>    "the Alternate-Marking Method MUST only be applied to controlled domains."
>
>
> Hence, I would like to discuss
>
>   - if MPLS performance measurement will be done in "controlled domains" or
>   not. If yes, should this specification not discuss and state about
>   measurement done in "controlled domains"?
> [XM]>>> Yes, on this point the MPLS performance measurement follows what
> RFC 9341 says. To make this explicit, I propose to add a new paragraph to
> the beginning of the Security section.
>
> NEW
>
> As specified in Section 7.1 of RFC9341, for security reasons, the
> Alternate-Marking Method MUST only be applied to controlled domains. That
> requirement applies when the MPLS performance measurement with the
> Alternate-Marking Method is taken into account, which means the MPLS
> encapsulation and related procedures defined in this document MUST only be
> applied to controlled domains, otherwise the potential attacks discussed in
> Section 10 of RFC9341 may be applied to the deployed MPLS networks.
>
Thanks the text looks good, however, I am not sure if MPLS perfomance can
be done in controlled domains or not i.e. what is the controlled domain
mean here in this context. I will left that to MPLS expert to comment on.

//Zahed




>
>
>   - current security consideration does not describe the implications if the
>
>   measurement is not done in the controlled domains, should this specification
>   not describe those?
> [XM]>>> Please see above. Is the text of the proposed new paragraph
> applicable?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have not marked any other transport protocol related issues.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Xiao Min
>
>
>