gmane.ietf.manet

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

Adrian Farrel — 2013-05-25T21:51:19

Abdussalam,

I am glad that I have captured your concern.
I am sure I didn't notice you raise these issues, but if fixing them helps
resolve your confusion it can only be a good thing.

Adrian

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-25T15:35:11

I mentioned similar concerns in my review at WGLC,


This is why I was confused of using the word *common*, but IMO if
clarified as your above request and as in my comments before, then it
will make the I-D reasonable.

AB

Re: draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Performance Metrics (UNCLASSIFIED)

Cole, Robert G CIV USARMY CERDEC (US — 2013-05-24T12:54:51

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

I agree that we should be more precise in our naming and descriptions.  This
question is showing up often in our MIB discussions.  I have made it a habit
of placing these counters within a PerformanceGroup instead of a
StatisticsGroup because I felt that Statistics implied we were collecting
statistical data (e.g., averages) instead of performance data (counts).  But
I agree that using the term Performance Metric goes too far and is not a
correct description of the data.  Going forward I'll try to be more
consistent and use the term 'Performance Information' as you all suggest and
as we did in RFC 6779.

Thanks,
Bob

Robert G. Cole
Comm:  443.395.8744
Email: robert.g.cole< at >us.army.mil


-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise< at >cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:03 AM
To: adrian< at >olddog.co.uk
Cc: Nguyen, James H CIV USARMY CERDEC (US); 'Fred Baker';
draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib< at >tools.ietf.org;
draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib< at >tools.ietf.org; pm-dir< at >

Re: draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Performance Metrics(UNCLASSIFIED)

Benoit Claise — 2013-05-24T10:02:34

Hi Adrian,

This is simply not correct!
Based on my two messages below (for the 2 drafts):

    Since RFC 6779 uses the term performance information (in the abstract), I

    would propose that draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib also uses this term, and not

    the "performance metric". That would avoid some confusion.

    ...

    Like
    Ulrich did for draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib, it might better to use
    "performance information" instead of "performance metrics" in your
    draft.

These are advice, and should be considered as such.

Regards, Benoit


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

Re: draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib and Performance Metrics(UNCLASSIFIED)

Adrian Farrel — 2013-05-24T09:26:10

Hi Benoit,
 
Thanks for cutting me in on this thread.
 
I do think this type of discussion should take place on WG mailing lists so I am
copying MANET on this reply.
 
It appears that the phrase "performance metric" causes alarm bells to ring in
several fire stations around the world. Although I strongly resent words or
phrases being captured for more specific and focused meaning than they deserve,
it is also clear that the pain caused by having a hundred firemen show up on
your doorstep at 3am is sufficient (unless you like firemen at 3am ;-) to
warrant taking Benoit's advice.
 
- Avoid the term "performance metric" unless you mean it in the
 sense of RFC 6390 (or be prepared to have a fight)
- Use the term "performance information" or maybe "performance
  counters"
 
<VBS>
 
Adrian
 
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise< at >cisco.com] 
Sent: 24 May 2013 09:33
To: Nguyen, James H CIV USARMY CERDEC (US)
Cc: Fred Baker; draft-nguyen-manet-ecds-mib< at >tools.ietf.org; me;
draft-ietf-manet-smf-mib< at >tools.ietf.org; pm-dir

Last Call: (SecurityThreats for NHDP) to Informational RFC

The IESG — 2013-05-23T22:22:42

The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
(manet) to consider the following document:
- 'Security Threats for NHDP'
  <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf< at >ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg< at >ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood
   Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on
   MANET routing protocols using NHDP.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Re: AD review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

Ulrich Herberg — 2013-05-23T21:46:19

Adrian,

thank you very much for your review. We will address your comments as
part of the IETF LC, like you suggested.

Best regards
Ulrich

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian< at >olddog.co.uk> wrote:

AD review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

Adrian Farrel — 2013-05-23T20:59:48

Hi,

Thanks for this document which I found readable and comprehensible.

I have done my usual AD review to find issues and concerns that I think
should be resolved before the document advances to IETF last call and
IESG review. 

Since I am not a security weenie^H^H^H^H expert, my comments are sparse.
Therefore I am kicking off IETF last call at once. Please handle my
comments as part of the last call. (I have also sent a heads-up to the
Security ADs that this document definitely needs attention from the 
Security Directorate.)

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

---

I know it is not the intent of this document to propose solutions or
mitigations to any of the threats described. However, I think two things
would be useful:

1. Please add a statement of exactly this point to the Abstract and to
   the end of the Introduction.

2. Please consider adding a short section that may drive new work by
   suggesting which threats need to be addressed in new protocol work,
   which in deployment, and which by applications

Need AODV implementations

Mukul Shukla — 2013-05-19T13:46:49

Hi,

I want to study the security issues of AODV protocol. I need the active
linux implementation of the AODV protocol. I t would be nice if I can have
DSR and OLSR implementations too.

Thanks.

Mukul
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

Publication Request for draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03

Joseph Macker — 2013-05-19T01:04:21

Please publish draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03 as an Informational
RFC. The Shepherds Writeup has been uploaded and is replicated below.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The type of document is Informational.  It provides discussion and
analyses useful for the internet and represents working group
consensus.  The document indicates "Information"

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:


Technical Summary: This document analyz

Re: #17: Proposed Reactive Protocols' Alternative MessageFormats

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-17T15:24:30

Hi Charlie,

This ticket is still for DYMO drafts, but now we have AODVv2 draft, I
hope that all tickets refer to the new document, or what do you think,

AB

On 5/11/13, manet issue tracker <trac+manet< at >trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:

Re: #1: Discussion about naming for the IETF reactive protocol

manet issue tracker — 2013-05-17T15:15:07

#1: Discussion about naming for the IETF reactive protocol


Comment (by abdussalambaryun< at >gmail.com):

 I hope to close this issue, as no objection to the new name AODVv2. For
 progress, could we start closing the discussion tickets, or there is
 another way to progress the protocol. Please advise,

 AB

Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-11T13:28:52

Hi Chris,


I know that the want-source came from the document and I as possible
user that need to know the reason of not using RFC5444. The RFC5444
wants all manet routers to use it. If it was not discussed, there is
no harm in discussing issues related, I think discussing I-Ds are
always reasonable in any way.

The I-D is an experimental work in progress, so I am asking to know
more, so I can make a decision to use it or not.

my comments below;


The intention of using RFC5444 is to improve OSPF in MANETs or to
improve the document applicability. Within MANETs I may have: NHDP,
AODVv2, OLSRv2, and SMF, that are all using RFC5444. The I-D is
looking into single hop broadcast networks, proposing new interface
manet type, and working within the MANET. I want to reduce the OSPF
flooding overhead, I think/imagine RFC5444 may be used for that need.
Furthermore, OSPF may cover areas of different networks, so MANET has
different security attacks from other nets, so IMO having using
similar RFC5444-sec can help a

Re: #17: Proposed Reactive Protocols' Alternative Message Formats

manet issue tracker — 2013-05-10T23:19:17

#17: Proposed Reactive Protocols' Alternative Message Formats


Comment (by charliep< at >computer.org):

 After reviewing this issue and subsequent comments, I suggest that we
 close this issue.  I agree that incorporating Henning's proposed revision
 should have the effect of relieving concerns about positional independence
 for the base spec, and the debate about whether positional dependence is
 bad or good can go on as a separate matter if there is still interest.

Re: Public Warning under RFC 3934

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-09T18:47:51

Hi Stan,

I did not mean to get respond on the list. Please note that I object.
Thanking you,

AB


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
<sratliff< at >cisco.com>wrote:

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

Re: Public Warning under RFC 3934

Stan Ratliff (sratliff — 2013-05-09T17:06:04

AB,

I am in receipt of this email. Will respond within 24 hours. Since this email includes the WG mailing list, I feel it incumbent upon me that the response also include the list - unless, or course, you object.

Regards,
Stan

On May 9, 2013, at 12:03 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

Please note that I still not receive an expalination of your warning, which I asked you in private on 8 March, and that I am not face-to-face participant but a remote participant, therefore;

Please note that I don't accept your warning because I uynderstand it as a discouraging.
Please note that I beleive that my inputs are technical and procedural related to IETF.
Please note that I beleive that in IETF I have freedom of input and speech as long as it is related to work discussions.
Please note that you did not send me a private notice warning before some time from your public warning, this makes me confused of the best practicing of RFC3934 section 2 (i.e. is for face-to-face but even if not it states that you make direct war

Re: Fwd: Public Warning under RFC 3934

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-09T16:03:05

Please note that I still not receive an expalination of your warning, which
I asked you in private on 8 March, and that I am not face-to-face
participant but a remote participant, therefore;

Please note that I don't accept your warning because I uynderstand it as a
discouraging.
Please note that I beleive that my inputs are technical and procedural
related to IETF.
Please note that I beleive that in IETF I have freedom of input and speech
as long as it is related to work discussions.
Please note that you did not send me a private notice warning before some
time from your public warning, this makes me confused of the best
practicing of RFC3934 section 2 (i.e. is for face-to-face but even if not
it states that you make direct warning first).

AB


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff)
<sratliff< at >cisco.com>wrote:

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-08T13:16:38

I have another question, May DLEP improve OSPF within manet? if yes why not
mentioned in the I-D,

AB


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <
abdussalambaryun< at >gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt

Dearlove, Christopher (UK — 2013-05-08T10:47:15

And the question would be why?

(I can imagine a possible why. But that's imagine, not have an actual reason. Someone might want sometime it is not a reason.)

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove< at >baesystems.com<mailto:chris.dearlove< at >baesystems.com> | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun< at >gmail.com]
Sent: 08 May 2013 11:20
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: manet; draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr< at >tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [manet] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt


*** WARNING ***
This message originates from out

Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-08T10:40:28

Hi Joe,

Yes it helped me understand the intent, but I think it will be nice if some
clarification goes into the I-D as well for future readers/users. Thanking
you,

AB


On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Joe Macker <jpmacker< at >gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

Re: FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt

Abdussalam Baryun — 2013-05-08T10:19:35

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <
Chris.Dearlove< at >baesystems.com> wrote:


I agree that the extension is not for manet UDP port/ protocol number as in
RFC5498. The extension is to OSPF for MANET (i.e. OSPF already has a
protocol number to be used). I was thinking of a new RFC5444 packet
specially for OSPF that is only used for this extension. Using only RFC5444
not using RFC5498, and not *OSPF over RFC5444*.

AB


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet