IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench - 18th October 2011,

Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net> Thu, 20 October 2011 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <hagen@jauu.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DFD421F848A for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:30:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
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 1zERcjTVfBuM for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from geheimer.internetendpunkt.de (alternativer.internetendpunkt.de [88.198.24.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A714421F8487 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by geheimer.internetendpunkt.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D8577F44129; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:30:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:30:41 +0200
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench - 18th October 2011,
Message-ID: <20111020213041.GD3179@nuttenaction>
References: <20111018120505.A1537FED737@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <9C0A8082-9E2E-4A7A-BC94-805341AAF293@isi.edu> <4EA03997.2080707@gont.com.ar> <4EA05981.9040709@isi.edu> <4EA07BD5.7090701@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20111020201121.GB3179@nuttenaction> <4EA08E11.7070707@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4EA08E11.7070707@isi.edu>
X-Key-Id: 98350C22
X-Key-Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22
X-GPG-Key: gpg --recv-keys --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net 98350C22
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, tsvwg WG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 20 Oct 2011 21:30:43 -0000

* Joe Touch | 2011-10-20 14:09:37 [-0700]:

>That won't help anyway. As with any router messages, there's no rule
>for how timely the message is, so the sequence number could easily be
>out of range (or even roll-over) by the time the message is sent.

Right Joe, maybe too late ... :)

>>Every instance can
>>forge malicious SQ messages and send to any UDP instance.  From a security
>>point of view UDP/UDPLite SHOULD ignore SQ messages too.
>
>AFAICT, this is the only sensible response.
>
>I.e., although SQ-like messages might be more useful to UDP than to
>other protocols, SQ itself as currently defined is not.
>
>>After consensus on that (I hope that the security aspect is a legitimate
>>aspect too) I am not aware of any transport protocol where SQ makes sense.
>
>With the caveat that "SQ as currently spec'd", +1

+1 (for the ID)

Hagen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email