IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RTG-DIR] [Int-area] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-05

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 15 January 2018 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A86B126DFB; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:26:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XqEfXMLto1Us; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D16712D7EB; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 6879A281222; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:26:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5748328122F; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:26:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C8F281222; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:26:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr [10.10.86.133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4C261083E3; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:26:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 55FB64009B; Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:26:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:26:43 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider.all@ietf.org, int-area@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180115162643.tm63bmzizoo4xtgv@nic.fr>
References: <151590364970.3170.13650222639051565830@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="iba3uep3jxvnjrod"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <151590364970.3170.13650222639051565830@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-5-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.027275, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.1.15.161817
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/cdAsNfP4KzWJ4h7USkRlesGznEc>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Int-area] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-broadcast-consider-05
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 16:26:51 -0000

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 08:20:49PM -0800,
 Carlos Pignataro <cpignata@cisco.com> wrote 
 a message of 118 lines which said:

> The document talks about "a passive observer in the same
> broadcast/multicast domain". It does not seem to cover, however, how
> exactly is bcast/mcast different from unicast, when the passive
> observer has an interface is promiscuous mode or has a packet
> capture library.

Most modern local networks are switched. It means a "passive observer
in promiscuous mode" cannot see the unicast traffic (except the one
directed to her, of course), only the broadcast one. Of course, one
can always tap an intercontinental fiber optic :-) but I believe the
draft addresses the case of a more ordinary observer, listening on an
Ethernet or WiFi, without physically breaking of anything.

One of the demos I like to make, when talking about privacy in
meetings for non-IETF people, is to enumerate the list of devices and
names I see :-) This is possible only if this information is
broadcasted.

> Based on this citation, should [TRAC2016] be Normative? And is it readily
> available?

It's on Sci-Hub :-) I attach it here.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email