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

Fred Baker <> Mon, 03 January 2011 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CE73A6B65; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:18:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.149
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxlDRs5kevd9; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7343A6A34; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAIW+IU2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkNXOibJkRhUoEhGWGH4MdiBU
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2011 20:15:52 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p03KFlVB024684; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:15:52 GMT
Received: from [] by (PGP Universal service); Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:15:52 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by on Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:15:52 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:15:38 -0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
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 <>, " IESG" <>,
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> writes:
>> Question for you. I have left the authors off the paper for the moment.
>> Mr Gont has recently posted a draft:
>>  "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.