Re: [OPSAWG] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med, 


This looks good to me.

I think I forgot to reply to your response to one of my earlier comments. Copying that here for convenience -

    > > Additional comment(s)-
    > >
    > > * I think if would be good if this specification also discusses the
    > > implication of wrong classification (e.g. for qos) based on the model
    > > specified here (no particular suggestion from me where but may be in
    > > security considerations).
    > >
    > 
    > [[Med]] I think this is already covered by this part in the draft:
    > 
    >       In addition,
    >       an attacker may modify the attributes of a running service (e.g.,
    >       QoS, bandwidth, routing protocols), leading to malfunctioning of
    >       the service and therefore to SLA violations.
    > 
    > Please let me know if there is more to say here. Thanks.

This might be fine, however, I was talking about the case where the configuration is correct but due to ambiguity the classification is wrong. The end result might be same i.e. SLA violation, but reason could be different.

BR
Zahed

On 2021-09-27, 11:20, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hi Zahed, 

    The proposed changes to address your DISCUSS are now implemented in a new revision:

    URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-12.txt 
    Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/ 
    Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm 
    Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-12

    Please me know if you still have any comment. Thanks. 

    Cheers,
    Med

    > -----Message d'origine-----
    > De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
    > Envoyé : mercredi 22 septembre 2021 12:05
    > À : Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>; The IESG
    > <[e-mail]>
    > Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
    > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
    > Objet : RE: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-
    > l3nm-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
    > 
    > Re-,
    > 
    > Please see inline.
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > Med
    > 
    > > -----Message d'origine-----
    > > De : Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
    > > Envoyé : mercredi 22 septembre 2021 10:16 À : The IESG <[e-mail]>
    > > Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
    > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Objet :
    > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11:
    > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
    > >
    > > Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
    > > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-11: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm/
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > DISCUSS:
    > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > This specification refers to ietf-opsawg-vpn-common for qos related
    > > matching, hence I am raising similar discussion as I had for ietf-
    > > opsawg-vpn-common (see here
    > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
    > > opsawg-vpn-common/).
    > >
    > > This specification specifies qos classification based on L4 criteria
    > > and describes the procedure for TCP and UDP. It is possible that new
    > > L4 protocols (for example QUIC) use UDP as substrate hence can create
    > > ambiguity based of the procedure described in the specification.
    > >
    > > This specification should consider such potential substrate usage of
    > > L4 protocols (specially UDP) and hint on the potential augmentations
    > > (there might be several ways to do that) or scope it down to not
    > > support such cases.
    > 
    > [[Med]] Added this NEW text to echo the proposal in the common module:
    > 
    >          As discussed in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-vpn-common], some transport
    >          protocols use existing protocols (e.g., TCP or UDP) as
    >          substrate.  The match criteria for such protocols may rely upon
    >          the 'protocol' under 'l3', TCP/UDP match criteria shown in
    >          Figure 26, part of the TCP/UDP payload, or a combination
    >          thereof.  This version of the module does not support such
    >          advanced match criteria.  Future revisions of the VPN common
    >          module or augmentations to the L3NM may consider adding match
    >          criteria based on the transport protocol payload (e.g., by
    >          means of a bitmask match).
    > 
    > >
    > >
    > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > COMMENT:
    > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > Thanks to the authors for their efforts in the specification.
    > >
    > > Additional comment(s)-
    > >
    > > * I think if would be good if this specification also discusses the
    > > implication of wrong classification (e.g. for qos) based on the model
    > > specified here (no particular suggestion from me where but may be in
    > > security considerations).
    > >
    > 
    > [[Med]] I think this is already covered by this part in the draft:
    > 
    >       In addition,
    >       an attacker may modify the attributes of a running service (e.g.,
    >       QoS, bandwidth, routing protocols), leading to malfunctioning of
    >       the service and therefore to SLA violations.
    > 
    > Please let me know if there is more to say here. Thanks.
    > 
    > ________________________________________________________________________
    > _________________________________________________
    > 
    > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
    > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
    > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par
    > erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les
    > pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
    > d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
    > altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
    > 
    > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
    > information that may be protected by law; they should not be
    > distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
    > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
    > delete this message and its attachments.
    > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
    > been modified, changed or falsified.
    > Thank you.


    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
    pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
    a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
    Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

    This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
    they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
    If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
    As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
    Thank you.