Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 14:16:44 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits-07: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Section 2.1.  As discussed in response to Bernard Aboba’s TSVART feedback on
“The pointer will point beyond the end of the ICMPv6 packet if the field having
a problem is beyond what can fit in the maximum size of an ICMPv6 error
message.” please add caution about not de-referencing this pointer.  The same
caution applies to Section 3.1.

** Section 5.2. Duplicate word.  s/to to/to/

** Section 6.  Per “In some circumstances, the sending of ICMP errors might
conceptually be exploited for denial of service attack or as a means to
covertly deduce processing capabilities of nodes”, one could conceivably
conduct various active fingerprinting to determine more than just processing
capabilities of nodes (say, device or OS identification) and perhaps also infer
the middleboxes fielded in-path too.