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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,

You are right. I got what I wanted from your response. With that I am happy
with the added text and thanks for resolving my discuss. Just let me know
when the proposed text lands on the updated draft..I will clear my discuss.

//Zahed

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 2:01 PM James Guichard <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Xiao,
>
>
>
> As the responsible AD for this document let me chime in here. I believe
> that Zahed’s DISCUSS is focused on the following text:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> The above text says ‘MUST only be applied to controlled domains’ and Zahed
> is trying to clarify that the MUST can be honored. I believe that the
> answer to this is yes as MPLS by design is a ‘fail closed’ protocol and
> therefore the method described in this document is contained within the
> boundaries of the network where MPLS is enabled.  I am not sure if any
> further text is necessary, but I will let Zahed confirm.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, September 11, 2024 at 9:38 PM
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[mpls] Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> Hi Zahed,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the prompt reply.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Original
>
> *From: *ZaheduzzamanSarker <[e-mail]>
>
> *To: *肖敏10093570;
>
> *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05日 19:25
>
> *Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)*
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> [XM-2]>>> I don't see any comments from MPLS expert, so pardon me to chime
> in. Section 7.1 of RFC9341 provides an explanation on what a controlled
> domain means, it says "A controlled domain can correspond to a single
> administrative domain or multiple administrative domains under a defined
> network management". Considering in Section 8 of this document it says
> "The method for achieving multi-domain performance measurement with the
> same Flow-ID label is outside the scope of this document", I think in the
> context of this document a controlled domain corresponds to a single
> administrative domain.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Xiao Min
>
>
>
> //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
>
>
>
>
>