Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft?
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Sat, 12 May 2012 23:38 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.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 CCFD221F859F; Sat, 12 May 2012 16:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.455
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.659, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynnTXZ8EOGD3; Sat, 12 May 2012 16:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com [209.65.160.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E834021F859B; Sat, 12 May 2012 16:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 784feaf4.0.82689.00-466.213914.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from <acmorton@att.com>); Sat, 12 May 2012 23:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 4faef4882f9e48c7-1cba9ec55cf5e774b3214857f6bcc7b6d3c35c35
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4CNclLq019754; Sat, 12 May 2012 19:38:47 -0400
Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4CNcjpO019751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 12 May 2012 19:38:45 -0400
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Sat, 12 May 2012 19:38:23 -0400
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4CNcLjR004287; Sat, 12 May 2012 19:38:22 -0400
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4CNcE54004136; Sat, 12 May 2012 19:38:15 -0400
Message-Id: <201205122338.q4CNcE54004136@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-76-152.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.76.152](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20120512233446gw10060l34e>; Sat, 12 May 2012 23:34:49 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.76.152]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 19:39:24 -0400
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F8700F8.4060709@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20120406144445.4188.3196.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <201204061553.q36FrBRV007699@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07e001cd14e0$41b408c0$c51c1a40$@olddog.co.uk> <201204080018.q380I1VK007743@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <099701cd15b1$fc18c990$f44a5cb0$@olddog.co.uk> <201204091344.q39Di1rK002725@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <0bea01cd168a$7ed8ae80$7c8a0b80$@juniper.net> <4F8578DE.1020808@cisco.com> <4F85C96C.4050705@mti-systems.com> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6F2DD0@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <4F8700F8.4060709@cs.tcd.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-RSA-Action: allow
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <acmorton@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=5eIHOXXyF6EA:10 a=ZswZ2TFLv48A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3]
X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8]
X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=-Cb5Q1N6AAAA:8 a=OUXY8nFu]
X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=AEDFM0qtAAAA:8 a=Z1rYrKf4OG4p9fYrxzAA:9 a=th8_0in]
X-AnalysisOut: [fIyJceI3zIosA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=czfYQaGQYtkA:10 a=peF9]
X-AnalysisOut: [eE_zjQwA:10 a=jqlaW5bC1iAA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=J4IfIaeN]
X-AnalysisOut: [E9Zpx8TY:21 a=TVbLTcCWtvzaL9Cn:21]
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "afarrel@juniper.net" <afarrel@juniper.net>, 'Samuel Weiler' <weiler@watson.org>, "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Dan Frost' <danfrost@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft?
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Sat, 12 May 2012 23:38:48 -0000
Sandy, To thoroughly close discussion on the additional point you raised: >There's one question I'm not adequate to address, and I leave it to >the authors and ADs to address: > > Although this metric MAY be applicable in > passive measurement as well, discussion of additional considerations > for the passive scenario are beyond the normative scope of this memo. > >Does that "MAY" mean "optional" in the 2119 sense, or >"might"/"could" in normal English usage sense? We do mean it's optional in the 2119 sense, and the additional considerations would need to be determined by the passive measurement designer. A draft I just reviewed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-akhter-opsawg-perfmon-method-02 gives many of these considerations (for passive one-way loss). regards, Al At 12:21 PM 4/12/2012, Stephen Farrell wrote: >Thanks Sandy, > >I've cleared. > >S > >On 04/12/2012 05:19 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: >>Dan Frost and I brought up some of the same comments, wrt the >>active or passive use of the metric and the suggestion of >>cryptographic hashes to solve security considerations. >> >>The latest revision satisfies me. >> >>There's one question I'm not adequate to address, and I leave it to >>the authors and ADs to address: >> >> Although this metric MAY be applicable in >> passive measurement as well, discussion of additional considerations >> for the passive scenario are beyond the normative scope of this memo. >> >>Does that "MAY" mean "optional" in the 2119 sense, or >>"might"/"could" in normal English usage sense? >> >>It sounds like this is saying "there are considerations if this >>metric is used in a passive scenario, which we aren't going to >>discuss, but even so you have the option to use this". >> >>I don't know what the "additional considerations" would be. If >>they are considerations that a measurement implementer should heed, >>that's not much of a worry. If they are considerations that impact >>others, that's more of a worry. (Section 9.2's discussion of >>keeping info confidential (for passive measurements) is an example >>of considerations that impact others.) >> >>So I'll leave it to those who know whether that "MAY" is OK or not. >> >>--Sandy >> >>________________________________________ >>From: Wesley Eddy [wes@mti-systems.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:11 PM >>To: Benoit Claise >>Cc: afarrel@juniper.net; 'Al Morton'; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Samuel >>Weiler'; 'The IESG'; ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; >>draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss@tools.ietf.org; 'Dan Frost'; Murphy, >>Sandra; secdir@ietf.org >>Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on >>draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft? >> >>On 4/11/2012 8:28 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: >>>Al, Wes >>> >>>I want to review this draft before the IESG telechat tomorrow. >>>However, it's getting difficult to keep track of the all the changes >>>between >>> - the posted version 3 >>> - the diff-03-04 you sent >>> - the extra proposal. >>> >>>What is the best way to proceed? >>> - Al, have you kept a temp version with all the changes? >>> - Are we shooting for "revised-ID" at the telechat? I could start my >>>review from there >>> - Do we want to have a version 4 posted now? >>> >>>What is the best way to proceed? >> >> >>I noticed Al sent a copy with updates that have been suggested >>so far. >> >>Please feel free to hit the "Defer" button if you don't feel >>there's adequate time to review this one; it looks like a busy >>telechat agenda this week! >> >>-- >>Wes Eddy >>MTI Systems
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Al Morton
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Al Morton
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Al Morton
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Benoit Claise
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Murphy, Sandra
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-iet… Al Morton