[secdir] Collision on changes for draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-14

["Vijay K. Gurbani" <[e-mail]>]

Spencer and Joe: I am attending to the secdir (Joe) and IESG (Spencer)
comments to soc-overload-control-14.

It appears that both of you hit on the same piece of text in the draft
and requested modifications to it.  The text in question is the
following paragraph in Section 11 of -14 [1]:

    Attacks that indicate false overload control can be mitigated by
    using TCP or Websockets [RFC6455], or better yet, TLS in conjunction
    with applying BCP 38 [RFC2827].  Attacks that are mounted to suppress
    genuine overload conditions can be avoided by using TLS on the
    connection.

The gist of your comments revolve around the role of TLS in the above
paragraph.  Both of you wanted the role highlighted, and in addition
Joe thought that the role of BCP 38 should be encouraged in all cases,
rather than just with the TLS case.

I independently agreed to a modification of the above paragraph with
both of you, and now I have to ensure that the independently agreed-to
modifications are distilled into a single new paragraph that is
acceptable to both of you.

Here is the text Joe and I agreed on (Jan 17, 2014):

    Attacks that indicate false overload control can be mitigated by
    using TCP or Websockets [RFC6455], or better yet, TLS in conjunction
    with applying BCP 38 [RFC2827].  Attacks that are mounted to suppress
    genuine overload conditions can be avoided by using TLS on the
    connection.  Generally, TCP and Websockets in conjunction with
    BCP-38 make it more difficult for an attacker to insert or modify
    messages,  but it is still possible depending on where the attacker
    is positioned in the network.  TLS provides better protection from
    an attacker that has access to the network link.

And here is the text Spencer and I agreed on (Feb 11, 2014):

    Attacks that indicate false overload control are best mitigated by
    by using TLS in conjunction with applying BCP 38 [RFC2827].  Attacks
    that are mounted to suppress genuine overload conditions can be
    similarly avoided by using TLS on the connection.  The use of TCP or
    Websockets [RFC6455] without TLS can provide some protection, but
    may be inadequate against an adversary that can modify traffic on
    links L1 and L2.

As you can see, both the suggested texts above appear to be heading in
the same direction.  I propose the following merger of the suggested
texts that I hope will be acceptable to both of you.

    Attacks that indicate false overload control are best mitigated by
    using TLS in conjunction with applying BCP 38 [RFC2827].  Attacks
    that are mounted to suppress genuine overload conditions can be
    similarly avoided by using TLS on the connection.  Generally, TCP
    and Websockets in conjunction with BCP-38 make it difficult for an
    attacker to insert or modify messages,  but may be inadequate
    against an adversary that can modify traffic on links L1 and L2.
    TLS provides the best protection from an attacker with access to
    the network links.

Thank you for your time attending to this email.  Please let me know of
any changes to the above text.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-14

Cheers,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [e-mail]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq