Subject: [RPSEC] Comments on the Abstract

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:29:34 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I think these comments were discarded as simple "grammar changes" earlier,
but I believe they change the technical thrust of the document, and should
be made:

   Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm individual
   users or the network operations as a whole. This document provides a
   description and a summary of generic threats that affects routing
   protocols in general. The work describes threats, including threat
   sources and capabilities, threat actions, and threat consequences as
   well as a breakdown of routing functions that might be separately
   attacked.

Replace with:

--
Routing protocols carry information about the topology of a network
which can be used to discover the best path to any given destination
within the network. The best path may be chosen based on its cost in
terms of bandwidth, delay, hop count, or other metric signifying the
length of the path, or it may be chosen based on some set of policies
designed by the network administrator. In either case, devices which
forward traffic (routers), using information and algorithms provided
by routing protocols, can make intelligent decisions when forwarding
traffic from one port to another.

Routing protocols, then are vulnerable to attacks against the
transportation of topology data, and attacks against the validity of
the topology data carried. This document describes the vulnerabilities
of routing protocols, including how they can be attacked in one of
these two areas, and how such attacks can be used to disrupt or
otherwise harm individual use of the network's resources, or force a
failure in the network denying the use of the network's resources in
general.

This work describes such attack methods in terms of threats, including
threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and threat
consequences.
--

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:39:28 -0400 (EDT)

I disagree, the proposed text is too wordy for an abstract.
I think the existing one suffices.  The new text can be added to the
Introduction if need be, though I don't think it's necessary in this
case.  The first paragraph is textbook material.  I'd hope anyone
who's involved in the IETF has already gotten the basics of what a
routing protocol does even if it's not their area of expertise.
I know you've had the textbook-writing hat on recently.  You may have
taken it off but still have "hat head". 8-)

Tony

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote:

> I think these comments were discarded as simple "grammar changes"
> earlier, but I believe they change the technical thrust of the
> document, and should be made:
>
>    users or the network operations as a whole. This document
>    provides a description and a summary of generic threats that
>    affects routing protocols in general. The work describes threats,
>    including threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and
>    threat consequences as well as a breakdown of routing functions
>    that might be separately attacked.
>
> Replace with:
>
> --
> length of the path, or it may be chosen based on some set of
> policies designed by the network administrator. In either case,
> devices which forward traffic (routers), using information and
> algorithms provided by routing protocols, can make intelligent
> decisions when forwarding traffic from one port to another.
>
> the topology data carried. This document describes the
> vulnerabilities of routing protocols, including how they can be
> attacked in one of these two areas, and how such attacks can be used
> to disrupt or otherwise harm individual use of the network's
> resources, or force a failure in the network denying the use of the
> network's resources in general.
>
> This work describes such attack methods in terms of threats,
> including threat sources and capabilities, threat actions, and
> threat consequences.
> --
>
> Russ

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:01:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> I disagree, the proposed text is too wordy for an abstract. I think the
> existing one suffices.  The new text can be added to the Introduction if
> need be, though I don't think it's necessary in this case.  The first
> paragraph is textbook material.  I'd hope anyone who's involved in the
> IETF has already gotten the basics of what a routing protocol does even
> if it's not their area of expertise. I know you've had the
> textbook-writing hat on recently.  You may have taken it off but still
> have "hat head". 8-)

:-)

> >    users or the network operations as a whole. This document

Could we at least change the first sentecnce, then, to something more
grammatical and thorough?

"Attacks against a routing protocol can harm individual or large numbers of
network users by impacting the network's ability to deliver packets to
their intended destination."

And, again, throughout: "The work" should be replaced with "This work."
It's not a third party thing--you're describing the draft from within the
draft, not another document from within the draft.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:15:05 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Russ White wrote:

> > >    Routing protocols are subject to attacks that can harm
> > >    individual users or the network operations as a whole. This
> > >    document
>
> "Attacks against a routing protocol can harm individual or large
> numbers of network users by impacting the network's ability to
> deliver packets to their intended destination."

That's fine or just change "the network operations" to either
"the network's operations" or "network operations".

> And, again, throughout: "The work" should be replaced with "This
> work." It's not a third party thing--you're describing the draft
> from within the draft, not another document from within the draft.

Agreed.

Tony
----
ps. In your message about "Comments on Section1, Introduction" you
proposed text starting with:

"While its well known that bad, incomplete, or poor implementations of
routing protocols may, in themselves, lead to routing problems or..."

That "its" should be "it's".   I didn't bother then but we're on the
grammatical side so I bring it up.  I like that stuff. -T

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:16:31 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

> That's fine or just change "the network operations" to either "the
> network's operations" or "network operations".

This would work as well....

> grammatical side so I bring it up.  I like that stuff. -T

Sure you don't want to edit some books? <hehe>

:-)

Russ