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

Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com> Thu, 18 March 2010 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tena@huawei.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 99D093A69B3; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.547, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 7Sh6HdvHMvKh; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E383A6831; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KZG00A2VHYMPZ@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:37:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KZG005Q7HYMX8@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:37:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z00147053k ([10.70.39.148]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KZG00JDXHYLO9@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:37:34 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:37:33 +0800
From: Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
Message-id: <2746FB9F002445DCBCB7E52F071D4A69@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05E0C897@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <9A90D3D3722C4A04879B3B6C57ECF65C@china.huawei.com> <201003161224.o2GCOFig009438@klpd017.kcdc.att.com>
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 02:37:35 -0000

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Al Morton" <acmorton@att.com>;
To: "Tina TSOU" <tena@huawei.com>;; <secdir@ietf.org>;; 
<draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl@tools.ietf.org>;; <iesg@ietf.org>;
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: SecDir review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04


> Thanks for your comments, Tina.
>
> 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?

> Al
>
>