IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] [Dots] Best transport selection during an attack?

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6F01B361F; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:43:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZTIhBIvla73c; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx144.netapp.com (mx144.netapp.com [216.240.21.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DE721B3627; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:43:49 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,245,1444719600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="78344648"
Received: from hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.39]) by mx144-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2015 17:42:49 -0800
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:42:48 -0800
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::e1d9:911e:3048:d510%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:42:48 -0800
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Andrew Mortensen <amortensen@arbor.net>
Thread-Topic: [tsvwg] [Dots] Best transport selection during an attack?
Thread-Index: AQHRF2Lwv1/VFujah0+VOSrMKLH6lp6MoumggACK9wA=
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:42:48 +0000
Message-ID: <833E87DD-66E2-4049-BF84-2CAFFBD58912@netapp.com>
References: <CAD62q9VFhg4-iMT2X_bBUQ3tU3hbDcb6k-_YrfKcT4Jf6iH6Eg@mail.gmail.com> <5638D31B.4080801@mti-systems.com> <CAD6AjGRQNSjb0x34_Or-tm7rbg_UQWPJjYFfLsV6znNsgPRoMA@mail.gmail.com> <0A836E5A-C801-4CF4-916C-41EA065D3D30@arbor.net> <CAD62q9WGUxf1NdAKw_tjST+RH=rT-3=-bdV=ivGUC_6L_qHzFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20dadcd20c26d51c284fdc4697cdc8a9.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362137C463@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <D260D348.14B76%nteague@verisign.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362137C4FA@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <D260D5E6.14B88%nteague@verisign.com> <DCCACB91-64EC-42DC-B497-A7E70EAFF571@arbor.net>
In-Reply-To: <DCCACB91-64EC-42DC-B497-A7E70EAFF571@arbor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.120.60.34]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_21E0BD36-83D1-4C2C-B33C-152AF1F0A828"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Chmqjsn4m-ZMidrTHQkN9OPmkxI>
Cc: Gorry Fairhust <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "Teague, Nik" <nteague@verisign.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>, "tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org" <tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [Dots] Best transport selection during an attack?
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 01:43:53 -0000

On 2015-11-05, at 9:58, Andrew Mortensen <amortensen@arbor.net> wrote:
> 
> And in fairness to the authors of draft-reddy-dots-transport, I believe they’re simply aligning the draft with the OP-001 requirement in the requirements draft:
> 
>   OP-001  Use of Common Transports: DOTS MUST operate over common
>      standardized transport protocols.  While the protocol resilience
>      requirement strongly RECOMMENDS the use of connectionless
>      protocols, in particular the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
>      use of a standardized, connection-oriented protocol
>      like the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) MAY be
>      necessary due to network policy or middleware limitations.
> 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dots-requirements-00#section-2.2>

I wanted to make sure DOTS is aware of RFC5405 and its intended successor draft-eggert-tsvwg-rfc5405bis.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email