Re: [tsvwg] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-32

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 5:01 PM [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> On Apr 9, 2024, at 3:31 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The questions I would like to get answer is  -
>
>       Is it OK for the endpoints to send information in UDP options which
> can be read (only) by the transit nodes and react to it? if NO,  then how
> to prevent that to happen?
>
> //Zahed
>
>
> We can prevent that if/when we proceed with the UDP encryption option or
> using IPsec.
>

I wanted to make sure we have a consensus here that it is good enough to do
so.


>
> But all this talk about transport protocols and their vulnerability to
> on-path mods strikes me as hollow. We have had such protections for TCP for
> a generation (over 25 yrs) with TCP-MD5 and its successor TCP-AO. Neither
> one protects packets from on-path tampering with IP options, but we’ve had
> that for just as long too.
>
> What we don’t have is a widely enough deployed key infrastructure. Until
> that happens, it’s difficult to understand how raising these issues
> obligates protocol designers.
>

(I am not sure why that is not widely deployed yet :-).)

The obligation here is that we have thought about the possibilities,
understand the pros and cons, made the right choice, and well describe them
on what we published.  I am not AD reviewing the document now, but I would
not like wait till my AD review to express what I would be looking for. Now
you know and can just tell me yes we have done those thoughts and in
section XXX we have described it well.


>
> However, there’s a second point I have not seen raised. Saying these
> options MUST NOT be modified in transit isn’t just for implementers - it’s
> also for those seeking to standardize such behavior and for those in the
> IETF who might assess those standards. What we’re saying, besides “don’t do
> it”, is “don’t standardize it”.
>
> The doc can make that point more clear in the doc, but I don’t see any
> other action coming from this discussion for the core doc.
>

Please, do that!!.

>
> I also would suggest we move these discussions off to GITHUB as soon as
> possible so we can trace them more easily (chairs - what’s the procedure
> for that? Do you? Does the doc shepherd? Do I?).
>

I am late to respond and I am not sure I am supposed to respond, but have
we created the issue.. It would be great for the record to share the issue
link in this email thread.


>
> Joe
>
>