Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-05: Implementation Considerations

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Mon, 24 October 2016 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC65129567; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 04:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no 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 qwvlb_fyrU-y; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 04:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (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 054B512965F; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 04:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u9OBK7fV008280 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:20:07 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u9OBK68l024657; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:20:06 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <22541.61030.850799.444550@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:20:06 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
In-Reply-To: <919689005.2218143.1476810193309@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <22495.62038.771947.984586@fireball.acr.fi> <1264225155.363685.1474644268281@mail.yahoo.com> <22507.60901.665544.878052@fireball.acr.fi> <1130739157.4563724.1475509147203@mail.yahoo.com> <22523.36827.869306.70163@fireball.acr.fi> <919689005.2218143.1476810193309@mail.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 1 min
X-Total-Time: 0 min
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/3g2SD8jdEYZcYDdiaQ9vKe0R-iI>
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option.all@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-05: Implementation Considerations
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:20:14 -0000

nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com writes:
> Continuing the taking of issues 1 by 1.  
> The discussion around Implementation Considerations boils down to two issues:
> 
> 1.  Default value of PDM should be OFF
> 
> 2. It should not be possible to turn on PDM merely by receiving a
> packet with PDM in it.
> 
> Current words:
> 
> "3.5 Implementation Considerations
>  
> The PDM destination options extension header SHOULD be turned on by
> each stack on a host node. It MAY also be turned on only in case of
> diagnostics needed for problem resolution."
> 
> 
> Suggested changes:
> 
>  
> "3.5 Implementation Considerations 
> 
> The PDM destination options extension header MUST be explicitly
> turned on by each stack on a host node by administrative action. The
> default value of PDM is off.
> 
> PDM MUST NOT be turned on merely if a packet is received with a PDM
> header. The received packet could be spoofed by another device."

That text looks good.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi