On 01/27/2016 07:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
This one surprised me a bit.
Asking for blockage of an ind-sub is a fairly unusual thing.
I kind of expected to find in the IESG review would explain the nature
of the conflict, but the totality of the review is:
"The IESG has concluded that this document violates IETF procedures about
pervasive monitoring (RFC 7258) and should therefore not be published
without IETF review and IESG approval. This work is related to IETF work
done in the INTAREA WG."
The procedures I could find described in RFC 7258 are these:
Those developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how
they have considered PM, and, if the attack is relevant to the work
to be published, be able to justify related design decisions. This
does not mean a new "pervasive monitoring considerations" section is
needed in IETF documentation. It means that, if asked, there needs
to be a good answer to the question "Is pervasive monitoring relevant
to this work and if so, how has it been considered?"
In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing
technology is reused, may significantly impact the vulnerability of a
protocol to PM. Those developing IETF specifications therefore need
to consider mitigating PM when making architectural decisions.
Getting adequate, early review of architectural decisions including
whether appropriate mitigation of PM can be made is important.
Revisiting these architectural decisions late in the process is very
costly.
The draft in question does have a "Pervasive Monitoring Considerations",
so the issue has certainly been considered by the authors. One may agree
or disagree with their conclusions, but one can't argue that they didn't
consider it.
I agree with Harald.
Besides, if this proposal is knocked down for including a host_id option
(which, skimming through the I-D doesn't seem to be some global
identifier) in flows that traverse a nat, then I wonder:
What would be the take on deploying IPv6 on such network, since that
would obviously reveal host identity even more than a host_id option?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492