Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 03 January 2011 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 D1CE73A6B65; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:18:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 lxlDRs5kevd9; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7343A6A34; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAIW+IU2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkNXOibJkRhUoEhGWGH4MdiBU
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2011 20:15:52 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p03KFlVB024684; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:15:52 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:15:52 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:15:52 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <ldvzkrhsqoi.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:15:38 -0800
Message-Id: <47825793-8744-47D4-A453-24821A269F3A@cisco.com>
References: <ldvhbdv29lz.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu> <64AE925C-9A79-433C-A3A7-90FF523C0321@cisco.com> <ldvzkrhsqoi.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
To: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IPv6 Operations Chairs <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01
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: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:18:19 -0000

On Jan 3, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Tom Yu wrote:

> Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>; writes:
> 
>> Question for you. I have left the authors off the paper for the moment.
>> 
>> Mr Gont has recently posted a draft:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops
>>  "Mitigating Teredo Rooting Loop Attacks", Fernando Gont, 7-Sep-10,
>>  <draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00.txt>
>> 
>> and is pushing for adoption as a working group draft. When asked to
>> consider merging his paper with this or another draft, he has been
>> unwilling. The chairs have basically told him to discuss his draft
>> on the list "and we'll see where it goes".
> 
> The draft filename implies 6man, not v6ops; which working group was
> asked to consider it?  By "his paper", do you mean the following item
> in the Informative References of draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00?

True. he has none-the-less been asking me to make it a v6ops working group draft.

>   [CPNI-IPv6]
>              Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol
>              version 6 (IPv6)",  UK Centre for the Protection of
>              National Infrastructure, (to be published).
> 
> The Teredo attacks and the protocol-41 attacks appear to be mostly
> separate, and probably don't interact, with the possible exception of
> using a protocol-41 tunnel to initiate a Teredo routing loop attack.

>> One of your criticisms of this draft is that it doesn't cover his
>> USENIX material. Would you prefer that this and Mr Gont's draft be
>> merged?
> 
> A reader of this draft might erroneously conclude that it adequately
> addresses all of the attacks described in the USENIX paper.  However,
> I think it's sufficient to mention the existence of the Teredo
> attacks, citing the USENIX paper and the Teredo routing loop draft,
> because someone who reads draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops might not be
> aware of the related attacks without reading the actual USENIX paper.

So you're simply looking for a reference? OK.

> It would also be a good idea to briefly state that the Teredo attacks
> are mostly separate from the protocol-41 attacks, and are therefore
> treated in another document.

OK.