Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04

Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Thu, 18 March 2010 12:10 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCE33A6B6A; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.77
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.77 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.704, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9h9Rs69+Zd6s; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com (mail121.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936323A68CD; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1268914246!38189372!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
Received: (qmail 31280 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2010 12:10:46 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-13.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 12:10:46 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2ICAu0I019233; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:10:56 -0400
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2ICArg9019164; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:10:53 -0400
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2ICAg5P001207; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:10:42 -0400
Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.3/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o2ICAbE7001117; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:10:37 -0400
Message-Id: <201003181210.o2ICAbE7001117@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (dyp004254dys.mt.att.com[135.16.251.229](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20100318121037gw100b8ic3e>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:10:37 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.16.251.229]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:10:44 -0400
To: Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com>, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <2746FB9F002445DCBCB7E52F071D4A69@china.huawei.com>
References: <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05E0C897@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <9A90D3D3722C4A04879B3B6C57ECF65C@china.huawei.com> <201003161224.o2GCOFig009438@klpd017.kcdc.att.com> <2746FB9F002445DCBCB7E52F071D4A69@china.huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:10:57 -0000

At 10:37 PM 3/17/2010, Tina TSOU wrote:
>>At 10:26 PM 3/15/2010, Tina TSOU wrote:
>>>In paragraph 3 of section 4.2, given that there is no change to 
>>>the TWAMP-test packet format, I assume we use the exact TWAMP-test 
>>>packet format as defined RFC5357, so that the SID is not carried 
>>>in the test packets. My question is that how the reflector just 
>>>whether a TWAMP-test packet belongs to the same session/SID or 
>>>not. Since per definition the testing message does not include 
>>>SID, how to differentiate the testing message of different testing 
>>>sessions after multiple testing started?
>>The Request-TW-Session command includes sender address + port
>>and receiver address + port, and this is usually sufficient.
>Can the server identify the corresponding SID based on sender 
>address + port and  receiver address + port?

Yes, the server assigns the SID with all addr+port information in hand.