Re: [mpls] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1084412DA26; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 SFMxO_QfNExF; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36F0E12D81B; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id y144so4858690wmd.0; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KV973vaeOsi9tNw8xu4EOBb7l90l6wAASnnzDlDoX+s=; b=TPdP6He8DaSE78Bd0WTrV//Qsekev95mKRSgszORTIUJge79NERXpgqvSJSDvoPv7l VZpDzLznPumN+DTZYceCng/+WMoOvQGIJh+CDJu08oHmBMk233j9wmqnfJ55TXaC1lV+ u+GO0yJmndmGViQr32FOcAKGJ5+srnxlyb/nt4Fb25nM5h5R9rpYMrAqAIkjaT2iuXm9 cFNQoSTbHNDbY2fYb3drQW0ymcH/QHy4RXHvdl+TTXG6Fk6RHCRae2I3OxaNW41xu5NS Oyhf0qXjX7o9Q1zwLNB3cfY+9M5Zji3V1c6i76c5x06Fmc/gACqgzPYIihZ2UrF68yDo PMHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KV973vaeOsi9tNw8xu4EOBb7l90l6wAASnnzDlDoX+s=; b=C4qFrxYUqQtln7Nn3dkLwGK/KBienD1MZKV9/cj0m/FT3ruzOfKWN2rS+T4Ez2LZAl nC5c9BYs3feZp+N04z8rRkf/hrnbTBLpnVXE2nA9ygFsJ5VTz58os5FrrCo8F2twERs/ hkAhrMKSwHKwuKOzifOrbNVPLJB5k/OJJX4gX+bgKCK3iAnvaP2BZ9UQN3K7GWF3IRPi vnGXgYDKBq17Ug/Lg9BYK7X4H83caJphqEbbmFnIjvigSL/mwhy/PkHhnv1ovGYe1YFK 8lMtRclfA/A/X3ZnfuV3sGTOMltuT4kNKhm049vwEWFqb3cA2LOxaPwP+CKHITa8Sdh8 H4kA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIEMK8/RnX6QlpopF+tiPTWnXI9DOEOBmyYzdqsCDmTZUOWnfcMhxNzLJcwz+wasA==
X-Received: by 10.28.220.213 with SMTP id t204mr4586210wmg.42.1460038833685; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p189sm30549199wmb.7.2016.04.07.07.20.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160105170104.3818.25141.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57066CAF.4040002@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:20:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160105170104.3818.25141.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/oZzPbMez_jmv2nXvIGScDQjXV54>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:36:41 -0000


On 05/01/2016 17:01, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04: No Objection
>
> 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> There were changes that seem to have been agreed as as
> result of the secdir review. [1] Some of those could I
> think nearly but not quite be discuss level, but as they
> aren't and the discussion seems to have started, I'll
> ballot no-objection but I do hope that the promised
> changes get made, and I'd recommend cycling back to the
> secdir reviewer (Sandy Murphy) as it wasn't clear to me
> that the discussion reached closure just before the
> holidays.
>
>     [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06296.html
I have added text on the need to check the validity of the IP address
to avoid Dos attacks and some text on default addresses.

>
> - Could this be used as a way to nicely disguise a DoS?
> I'm not sure if that's new to this or not though.

See above
>
> - Thanks for the applicability statement in the security
> considerations. Makes me wonder about MPLS/UDP but sure.
>
> - Saving a single bit to distinguish address families via
> length seems unwise here, as everywhere.

Considering the difficulty of getting IPv6 deployed, I really doubt that
that we will see a new IP family.

- Stewart