[manet] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet- dlep-credit-flow-control-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Gorry,

On Mon Mar 24 12:01:28 -0700 2025, Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker wrote:
> Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-18: 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-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I was unaware of this work in Manet, and thank you for making an interesting
> and useful specification. I have two concerns I’d like to discuss:
> 
> 1. The text says: “In the absence of a wildcard, a packet may not match any of
> the data items and, in this case, SHOULD be dropped by the router.”.- Why is
> this not a MUST? (If it needs to be a SHOULD, then please add text to explain
> what happens whene there is no match and explain whether sending this pacekt
> also consumens credit.)

MUST seems appropriate.  I'll change this.

> 
> 2. If a packet is not matched and is dropped, ought it to be logged? (It would
> be logged if there was no FID). Either way, the specification ought to explain
> whether an entry in the log is to be expected.

Currently, the cases where a log entry should be made are those where a
flow control data item is received, by either side, that contains a FID
not previously defined by the modem.  There is no logging based on what
is seen in the dataplane.  Should this still be called out explicitly?

> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I don’t think the security mechanisms are sufficiently defined to be useful.
> Please can you explain what threats these updates are expected to counter. This
> currently leads to two very ineffective security considerations:

The Security Considerations give an example of the type of threat to
which flow control might susceptible.  Other cases are given in DLEP
(8175) and are applicable, but not specific to flow control.

Your last sentence ends with a colon, so I'm not sure if your comment
was truncated.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]