Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05

"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Fri, 15 September 2017 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.com>
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 8BAA913305B; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=nozv8ges; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=IXLRCh6b
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 uHMU892tsQtc; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.149.229]) (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 C1208133050; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dell.com; i=@dell.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1505495708; x=1537031708; h=from:cc:to:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xTXp2oqX1/ZohqhVkqEEV7kyAPPahXRRXCDa5X6us7w=; b=nozv8gesP0z7uGbFDQXAPcFU40u+LYxd3hoqgioQDVnRYrSCJPllRcin EoDr6srrG2B6CrXEij8gGEhyGgGVTg2NJKqnon+EZ2+M9OtKODAvw77yD 8waGjlEQek5BLD+gnzaGtzK97uBEkR21HpR0pV/ALPdGFWBvV8jKnaC3x E=;
Received: from esa4.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com ([68.232.154.98]) by esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Sep 2017 12:15:08 -0500
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation all <draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation.all@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
Received: from mailuogwhop.emc.com ([168.159.213.141]) by esa4.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Sep 2017 23:15:07 +0600
Received: from maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.36]) by mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id v8FHF5G8018384 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:15:06 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com v8FHF5G8018384
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1505495706; bh=TlGuMqY70n5hfFAd65wBO/ldPs4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=IXLRCh6bRomHYgUtG9nQgMeatmOn0hpQnZbQfFXj7TDrqmueiRf0DLjkAt1ONyKxD EBsDa5SPEMGhT0DsFFav9JLxqmQjLdRd5kAnGPYr1l9MASo+XJh9/YQlR7x0Yp9jE7 J1bx1bJJKdPQT/jnK11IuHbl3QTmjPMruaJCo8Bw=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd03.lss.emc.com v8FHF5G8018384
Received: from mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.24]) by maildlpprd04.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:13:29 -0400
Received: from MXHUB310.corp.emc.com (MXHUB310.corp.emc.com [10.146.3.36]) by mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id v8FHEn8K031423 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:14:50 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB310.corp.emc.com ([10.146.3.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:14:49 -0400
To: Hilarie Orman <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05
Thread-Index: AQHTLLr4WQvk51ntSUOPm3l8GZJ72KKzINLQ5YpUX6KaeLz84A==
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:14:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC54521@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
References: <201709131804.v8DI4QUh014123@rumpleteazer.rhmr.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FC4F7BC@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <1607661178.655872.1505344305163.JavaMail.zimbra@purplestreak.com>
In-Reply-To: <1607661178.655872.1505344305163.JavaMail.zimbra@purplestreak.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.238.44.138]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd51.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/JI3OR2joyRXx0nrUOOu_uvcvLMU>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:15:10 -0000

I've added a sentence to that effect to the security considerations section of what will become the -06 version of this draft:

However, effective congestion control is crucial to the continued operation of the Internet, and hence this memo places the responsibility for not breaking Internet congestion control on the experiments and the experimenters who propose them, as specified in Section 4.4. This responsibility is embodied in the requirement to discuss congestion control implications in the Experimental RFC for each experiment, as review of that discussion by the IETF community and the IESG prior to publication approval of that RFC should ensure that the experiment does not break Internet congestion control.

Thanks, --David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hilarie Orman [mailto:hilarie@purplestreak.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:12 PM
> To: Black, David <david.black@emc.com>
> Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; secdir <secdir@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-
> experimentation all <draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation.all@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05
> 
> Yes, I think it would be suitable to include such a statement.
> People read these things, they wonder, does anyone try to prevent
> Internet from turning into ice-9?
> 
> Hilarie
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
> To: "Hilarie Orman" <hilarie@purplestreak.com>om>, "The IESG"
> <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, "secdir" <secdir@ietf.org>
> Cc: "draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation all" <draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-
> experimentation.all@ietf.org>gt;, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 12:27:55 PM
> Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05
> 
> Hilarie,
> 
> Thank you for the review.
> 
> > I realize that people experiment with TCP modifications all the time,
> > and the ECN experiments can provide valuable engineering information.
> > Nonetheless, it seems that some higher standard of safety could be
> > in order for today's Internet.  But that is outside the scope of this
> > document.
> 
> Well, there is a higher standard of safety and it is outside the scope of this
> document.
> 
> Experiments that take advantage of the liberation (I like that word!) in this
> document are required to first be documented in an Experimental RFC.   That
> requirement should provide both the Transport Area and the IESG with the
> ability to ensure that such experiments do not pose unacceptable risks to the
> continued operation of the Internet - a statement to that effect could be
> added if you or the Security ADs think it would be helpful.
> 
> Thanks, --David
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hilarie Orman [mailto:hilarie@purplestreak.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 2:04 PM
> > To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05
> >
> >                      Security review of
> >          Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Experimentation
> >                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05
> >
> > Do not be alarmed.  I have reviewed this document as part of the
> > security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
> > being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily
> > for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and
> > WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
> > comments.
> >
> > This document liberalizes the ways in which experiments can be
> > conducted on explicit congestion notification with TCP, RTP, and DCCP.
> >
> > Other than the alarming statement:
> >
> >    "... this memo places the
> >    responsibility for not breaking Internet congestion control on the
> >    experiments and the experimenters who propose them, as specified in
> >    Section 4.4."
> >
> > there are no security considerations that occur to me.
> >
> > I realize that people experiment with TCP modifications all the time,
> > and the ECN experiments can provide valuable engineering information.
> > Nonetheless, it seems that some higher standard of safety could be
> > in order for today's Internet.  But that is outside the scope of this
> > document.
> >
> >
> > Hilarie
> >
> >
> >
> >