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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

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

> Fred Baker <[e-mail]> 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.