Subject: Re: [manet] NHDP-sec-threats feedback

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 06:40:48 +0200

Hi Jiazi

I already send my feedback before [1 -2] which had no respond/comment
from authors. I think any comment should be responded to by authors of
I-Ds or RFCs. I think that we need more discussions responds/comments
from the group before last call regarding this I-D.

Regards
AB

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12899.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13234.html
===================================================

> I apologize to Jiazi and co-authors as we accidentally skipped one of
> the slide sets at this afternoon's meeting.
>
> Please review the slides for NHDP-sec-threats located at
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/agenda
> and see draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-00
>
> The authors are asking for consideration of WG LAST CALL on this
> document so please comment.
>
> -Joe
>

---

From: "John Dowdell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:39:03 +0100

Some comments on NHDP-sec-threats.

The quality of the implementation is outside of the scope of this
document, but here will be some variables in how robustly the protocol
has been implemented. A simple implementation will be considerably less
robust than one with comprehensive error and failed state detection.
Links with high bit error rates are particularly difficult to cater for,
since implementations may simply crash when there are too many
simultaneous error conditions.

However, some specifics relating to sequence numbers.

If the attacking node sent control packets with random sequence numbers,
and the receiving node was expecting linearly increasing sequence
numbers, would an implementation ignore packets sent with lower sequence
numbers than the highest sequence number sent? An example: say a node
was expecting to receive packets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and actually received
packets 10, 15, 12, 7, 20, 11, then the receiver would process packets
10, 15 and 20 and discard 12, 7 and 11, but will waste processing time
doing so. The implementation may decide on supplementary action if the
sequence numbers are spread so far apart, as that may give the illusion
that this link has a higher packet loss than is actually the case.

John

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Joseph Macker
Sent: 31 July 2012 01:09
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] NHDP-sec-threats feedback

-Joe