IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Fri, 28 October 2022 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82484C14CF09; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OAl3uWgqkqwA; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA57AC14E514; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4Mz7jK3FFpz5BNRf; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:45:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4Mz7hl2mLHz4y0vT; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxh01app02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.206]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 29S3iTKZ010926; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:29 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxh01app01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:30 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:30 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9635b501e2fe2e2d0
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202210281144304500524@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BN2P110MB11079F6463BBBA3F54D60FA9DC339@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: 166675086250.47604.7864402101541987293@ietfa.amsl.com, 202210261535570590272@zte.com.cn, BN2P110MB11079F6463BBBA3F54D60FA9DC339@BN2P110MB1107.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: rdd@cert.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 29S3iTKZ010926
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.138.novalocal with ID 635B5045.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1666928709/4Mz7jK3FFpz5BNRf/635B5045.000/192.168.251.13/[192.168.251.13]/mxct.zte.com.cn/<xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 635B5045.000/4Mz7jK3FFpz5BNRf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/iw0FY2EOBGrK32bN4_DhA_aHuAk>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 03:45:15 -0000

Hi Roman,






Thank you for the reply. I got it.






Best Regards,



Xiao Min









Original



From: RomanDanyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: iesg@ietf.org <iesg@ietf.org>;draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state@ietf.org>;ippm-chairs@ietf.org <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>;ippm@ietf.org <ippm@ietf.org>;marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>;
Date: 2022年10月27日 22:21
Subject: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)






Hi Xiao!


 


Thanks for the quick response.  The refined text described below addresses my concerns.


 


Roman


 




From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
 Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 3:36 AM
 To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
 Cc: iesg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com
 Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)




 

Hi Roman

 


Thank you for the review and thoughtful comments.


Please check inline the proposed changes that will be incorporated into the next revision.


 


Best Regards,


Xiao Min

 


Original



From: RomanDanyliwviaDatatracker <noreply@ietf.org>



To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;



Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state@ietf.org>;ippm-chairs@ietf.org <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>;ippm@ietf.org <ippm@ietf.org>;marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>;marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>;



Date: 2022年10月26日 10:21



Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)




Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
 draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: Discuss
 
 When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
 email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
 introductory paragraph, however.)
 
 
 Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/  
 for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
 
 
 The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state/
 
 
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 DISCUSS:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Section 6.
 
    A deployment can increase security by using border filtering of
    incoming and outgoing echo requests/replies.
 
 Thanks for calling out the security impact of echo request/replies.  Since the
 cited RFC9197 reminds the reader that a “network operator is expected to
 enforce policies that prevent IOAM traffic from leaking outside of the
 IOAM-Domain”, why is this guidance not mandatory?
 
 Would the following text be more appropriate?
 
 NEW
 A deployment MUST ensure that border filtering drops inbound echo requests with
 a IOAM Capabilities Container Header from outside of the domain, and drops
 outbound echo request/replies with IOAM Capabilities Headers leaving the domain.
 [XM]>>> Yes, I think the text proposed by you is more appropriate. Typo s/a IOAM Capabilities/an IOAM Capabilities.
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 COMMENT:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Thank you to Chris Lonvick for the SECDIR review.
 
 Section 3.1.  Typo. s/begining/beginning/
 
 Section 6.  Typo. s/securiy/security/
 [XM]>>> OK, will fix. Thank you for catching them.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email