Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)

Olivier Bonaventure <> Mon, 03 October 2016 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04F91294FC; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j0esyIHSpGkG; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B4AC129513; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbpobo.lan (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F44C67DCA6; Mon, 3 Oct 2016 17:43:24 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 0F44C67DCA6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=selucl; t=1475509404; bh=R1deT65ndEEGeO4lAq1wTw/fXJBV3iwXsQgkFkp2U0c=; h=Reply-To:Subject:References:To:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=lPKvnGpRKLGr97Uyr8IoZ1ER5bj/3Cj8mJUEPmz/Fwcb9SJOxY4zvAmzIIe6sSzmh R3yb2SJlm7mjIUYx5bynZNhVTUQe8tIBMc6s+BY1d6fQhqDXbguf4lQMEI/IWc0Ke1 Uo2zZgWFjP5phc08lNA6/hCKFQy3iXhpWfIyujRE=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at smtp-4
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Olivier Bonaventure <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 17:43:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sgsi-Spamcheck: SASL authenticated,
X-SGSI-MailScanner-ID: 0F44C67DCA6.A8AAF
X-SGSI-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-SGSI-Spam-Status: No
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-mptcp-experience-06: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 15:43:45 -0000


> I didn’t see any more emails in this thread. Stephen, are you happy with the proposed text?
> The proposed text works for me and I think is an interesting point to add - but I'm not sure it directly answers your point (I guess the answer is something like 'No information about MPTCP-tailored attacks' or 'no information that can be shared')

I haven't seen reports of actual attacks that tageted MPTCP or used 
MPTCP to perform an attack. The closests discussions that I'm aware of 
are the two references that I mentioned in the updated text

    [PT14]     Pearce, C. and P. Thomas, "Multipath TCP Breaking Today's
               Networks with Tomorrow's Protocols", Proc. Blackhat
               Briefings , 2014, <

    [PZ15]     Pearce, C. and S. Zeadally, "Ancillary Impacts of
               Multipath TCP on Current and Future Network Security",
               IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 58-65 , 2015.

> Olivier & authors - is it possible to do a new version of the document please - I think the Discuss and the other comments are quite easy to resolve, and it would be good to publish the document (finally!)

We have an updated text but I was expecting comments on this security 
part which is the main change that was requested by the reviewers