Re: Tagging or rate limiting: please consider another ML and a BOF

Pekka Nikander wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> 
>>>While I find your recent discussion at the BTNS WG mailing
>>>list interesting, I also think that a large part of it does
>>>not belong to this WG.  Some of the issues seems be of
>>>relevance, and most probably should be recorded somewhere in
>>>the forthcoming applicability document.
>>
>>Those two statements seem inconsistent; if it's part of the AS, then we
>>need to vet it out on this list, though it would be useful to hear 
>>other
>>viewpoints as well.
> 
> While I think that some specific points from your discussion
> should be recorded, such as the potential performance problems
> related to IPsec processing in routers and especially the potential
> of DoS against router management processors, many other aspects
> of the discussions are, according to my judgement, clearly beyond
> the WG charter.  For example, a proposal of early verification/
> tagging/cookies of IP packets clearly does not belong to this WG.
> (But, OTOH, I do think that such tagging may well be a good idea.)
> 
> Hence, if you want to continue discussing the specific residual
> threats of using BTNS to (partially) protect router management
> traffic, that _does_ belong to this list, but if you want to discuss
> how to solve those residual threats with mechanisms that go beyond
> anonymous or unauthenticated keying, then that is outside the scope
> of the WG.

Sure. Just clarifying.

>>>However, what comes to the proposal to create a new protocol,
>>>or variant of AH or ESP, that would provide some kind of an
>>>early lightweight verification (tagging or cookies) to be
>>>performed before AH or ESP integrity verification, that clearly
>>>falls outside the scope of this WG, as I think you duly noted.
>>>On the other hand, personally I find the proposal quite
>>>interesting, and would suggest creating another mailing list
>>>for it, and perhaps trying to schedule a BOF for either Paris
>>>or Vancouver.  Hence, my co-chair allowing, I think that we can
>>>continue this discussion here *temporarily*, until such a new
>>>mailing list has been set up.
>>
>>I'd be glad to set that up at postel.org, if there is a good name for
>>such a list - maybe "triage"?
> 
> Personally, I don't think that the list name matters much.  The
> list charter is probably more important.  Personally, I'd like
> us to focus mostly on the problem first, i.e., the potential DoS
> that especially on-path but possibly also off-path attackers may
> pose to the IPsec integrity verification process.  The solution
> could be anything from a partially-redesigned ESP to a new
> IP extension header or even maybe reuse of some existing fields
> in some existing headers.  But given that,  I would suggest
> something like Tagging IP Packets for Protecting Integrity
> Protection (TIPPIP)   But, as said "triage" as a list name is
> also fine for me.

I'll setup the list today and announce it later.

Joe