Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-03
Al Morton <acmorton@att.com> Wed, 16 November 2011 04:26 UTC
Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D8C711E80B5 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:26:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.925
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.587, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EYn3L0G4wVjB for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9183A11E80A6 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:25:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: acmorton@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1321417557!1260727!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.3.6; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 21489 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2011 04:25:57 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-6.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Nov 2011 04:25:57 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG4QP4w010587 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:26:25 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG4QJrA010555 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:26:20 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG4Ppn1017983 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:25:51 -0500
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG4Podb017964 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:25:50 -0500
Message-Id: <201111160425.pAG4Podb017964@alpd052.aldc.att.com>
Received: from acmt.att.com (vpn-135-70-8-119.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.8.119](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with SMTP id <20111116042451gw100e4ldce>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:24:53 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.8.119]
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:26:38 -0500
To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
From: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>
References: <E5F4DC211930DB488C0563E1C93FB748169D25EF@dfweml503-mbx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ippm-loss-episode-metrics-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:26:00 -0000
I'll clarify a few points below,
Al
At 09:15 PM 11/15/2011, Tina TSOU wrote:
I had reviewed the draft already, but I have no knowledge to comment on the metric model. As far as security issue is concerned, since this is a active measurement, it suffers the drawbacks of injection of measurement traffic which is listed well in section 9.
Yes, as the latest metric in a long series of RFCs on
metrics for Active measurement, there are no new issues.
They should see if their model complies with RFC 1262: guideline for Internet measurement activities.
Although 1262 is a general guideline mostly for passive collection,
there are some general implications for active measurement as well.
However, RFC 2330 covers this topic far more extensively and
specifically for active measurement in IPPM.
It can also help if they can mention what is the threshold percentage of measurement traffic that is tolerable and if they can quote an approximate percentage of measurement traffic needed to inject according to their loss metric and if it is acceptable.
This threshold has been requested by SecDir and other reviewers
outside of IPPM, but there is no value which is applicable to all
measurement circumstances. Even 1262 and 2330 decline to do this,
using general wording without providing a single numerical threshold.
Thus, the coverage of this draft is consistent with RFC 2330 and
previous metric RFCs on the topics load and amount of measurement
needed (accuracy is a design problem that goes beyond the metric definition).