Re: [tcpm] tcp-security: More feedback requested for the document outline

[Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Fernando Gont wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> The original deadline for commenting on the document outline is over.
> These are the comments so far:
> 
> * Joe: wants to change the outline from the current outline (which
> basically analyzes TCP on a "per-protocol-field",
> "per-protocol-mechanism" basis, etc.) to an outline that basically
> analyzes TCP on a "per-attack" basis (his proposal is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpm/current/msg04838.html)

The outline I proposed breaks things down into groups based on:
	
	control plane in-band
	control plane out-of-band
	data plane
	API

This is (loosely) based on how TCP is specified (order not withstanding).

Although I did suggest talking about attacks first, then talking about
mitigations (to separate the two, because a single attack can have
multiple mitigations, and a single mitigation can inhibit multiple
attacks), the overall structure is not per-attack as much as it based on
breaking the protocol down into its component parts.

- ---

It also distinguishes between protocol weaknesses (places where the
protocol creates a vulnerability, regardless of implementation - e.g.,
ICMP attacks), implementation choice issues (places where a choice left
to implementers can cause problems if poorly chosen - e.g., how some
SHOULDs turn into "don't do this in a secure implementation"), and
implementation vulnerabilities (implementation issues not related to
choices in the spec that create problems - e.g., searching the TIME-WAIT
list linearly).

Regardless of how we proceed, I believe that this latter issue should be
considered in the presentation of solutions.

> * Wesley: would like to change the outline as proposed by Joe, but could
> live without doing that.
> 
> * Alfred: wants to leave the outline as is
> 
> * Fernando: wants to leave the outline as is
> 
> * Toby: wants to change the outline as proposed by Joe
> 
> I don't personally see clear consensus for changing the outline (even
> less if we consider that many more people had agreed to accept the
> document "as is").
> 
> However, as there have not been that many opinions about the outline, I
> think it would be a good idea if wg participants that have not yet
> voiced their opinion regarding the document outline have another chance
> to do it.
> 
> So let's set a new deadline for this second round off-comments: if you
> have any comments regarding the document outline, please voice your
> opinion till September 16th (Wednesday), 2009.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Kind regards,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqnSJEACgkQE5f5cImnZrvSDACg07iCr3uC1ORZ8rvT3PWYrbmq
yDYAoKzt6bDekRm6c5HLvgmDVenPW2m1
=Qg/w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----