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 20:11 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 4F8E011E809D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:11:26 -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 TSd3HeCCu5jc for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from geheimer.internetendpunkt.de (alternativer.internetendpunkt.de [88.198.24.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3C0611E8097 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by geheimer.internetendpunkt.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8327EF44129; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:11:23 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:11:22 +0200
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@jauu.net>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench - 18th October 2011,
Message-ID: <20111020201121.GB3179@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4EA07BD5.7090701@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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: 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 20:11:26 -0000

* Gorry Fairhurst | 2011-10-20 20:51:49 [+0100]:

>While I agree it's fair to say such behavior is inappropriate for TCP
>and SCTP, I'm finding it harder to say that a UDP app MUST never
>respond to a SQ.
>
>In the end, I think that from my point of view (no chair hat, etc)
>there were no good reasons why an arbitrary UDP application program
>could decide not decide to react to SQ messages.

Mhh, right. But on the other hand: there is no (suitable) protection for UDP
to detect forged SQ messages (e.g. no sequence field).  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.

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.

Hagen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email