Skip to main content

Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-01-04
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-11-12
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joel Halpern.
2016-10-31
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-10-06
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-09-22
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-09-22
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-09-22
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-09-22
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2016-09-22
08 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-09-22
08 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-09-22
08 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-09-22
08 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2016-09-21
08 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent
2016-09-21
08 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-09-12
08 Fernando Gont IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-09-12
08 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-08.txt
2016-09-12
08 Fernando Gont New version approved
2016-09-12
08 Fernando Gont Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Tore Anderson" , "Fernando Gont" , "Shucheng LIU (Will)" , 6man-chairs@ietf.org
2016-09-12
08 (System) Uploaded new revision
2016-09-12
07 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-09-01
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for Writeup
2016-09-01
07 Bob Hinden
Title          : Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
Authors        : Fernando Gont
          …
Title          : Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
Authors        : Fernando Gont
                  Will(Shucheng) Liu
                  Tore Anderson
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-05.txt
Pages          : 10
Date            : 2016-01-20

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
header?

Informational

This is correct as it describes the reasons to deprecate the generation
of atomic fragments that has been included in draft-ietf-rfc2460bis.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  RFC2460 requires that when a host receives an ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big"
  message reporting an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes, the host includes a
  Fragment Header in all subsequent packets sent to that destination,
  without reducing the assumed Path-MTU.  The simplicity with which
  ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages can be forged means that an attacker
  can leverage this functionality (the generation of IPv6 atomic
  fragments) to trigger the use of fragmentation for any arbitrary IPv6
  flow, and subsequently perform any fragmentation-based attack.  This
  document discusses the security implications of the generation of
  IPv6 atomic fragments and a number of interoperability issues
  associated with IPv6 atomic fragments, and concludes that the
  aforementioned functionality is undesirable, thus documenting the
  motivation for removing this functionality in the revision of the
  core IPv6 protocol specification in draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.

Working Group Summary

  The document was developed and adopted in the 6MAN w.g. and the
  deprecating of the remaining case of atomic fragment generation was
  included in draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis based on an earlier standards
  track version of this draft.  After this was done the authors agree to
  remove the RFC2460 update and change the status of this document as
  Informational.

Document Quality

  There is wide support for this document and the relevant changes in
  draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.  The document has had extensive review in
  the w.g. including reviews by the w.g. chairs.  There are no open
  technical issues.  A few editorial issues have been identified that can
  be dealt with in later versions.

Personnel

  Bob Hinden is the document shepherd.  Brain Haberman is the responsible
  area director.  This is expected to move to Suresh Krishnan.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

  Reviewed the current version of the document and identified a few
  editorial changes.  The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

  No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed
those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns here.

  No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

None of the authors are aware of any IPR on this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  N/A.


(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  Strong consensus.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No serious ID nits.  The only issues identified are editorial (remove
  reference from abstract and a few references that aren't used)

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

  N/A

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the
interested community considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations
procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name
for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  N/A
 
2016-09-01
07 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-09-01
07 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-09-01
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-08-31
07 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-08-31
07 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-08-31
07 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I'm not going to stand in the way of publication, but I don't think we need to publish this document: it already served …
[Ballot comment]
I'm not going to stand in the way of publication, but I don't think we need to publish this document: it already served it's purpose.  Evidence of that is in RFC7915, rfc2460bis...
2016-08-31
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-08-31
07 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
I have to say I agree with the tsv-art review that it is not fully clear to me that this explanation needs an …
[Ballot comment]
I have to say I agree with the tsv-art review that it is not fully clear to me that this explanation needs an own document. For me a much short rational for this change (1 or max. 2 paragraphs) that could be integrated in 2460bis would be sufficient (also given that this document has soe redundancy).
2016-08-31
07 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-08-30
07 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-08-30
07 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-08-30
07 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-08-29
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot has been issued
2016-08-29
07 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-08-29
07 Suresh Krishnan Created "Approve" ballot
2016-08-29
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-08-25
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-08-25
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-08-22
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-08-19
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Klaas Wierenga.
2016-08-16
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke
2016-08-16
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke
2016-08-12
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-08-12
07 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-08-11
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-08-11
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-08-11
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2016-08-11
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Klaas Wierenga
2016-08-09
07 Suresh Krishnan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-09-01
2016-08-08
07 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-08-08
07 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "Robert M. Hinden" , ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: "Robert M. Hinden" , ipv6@ietf.org, bob.hinden@gmail.com, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful'
  as Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-22. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document discusses the security implications of the generation
  of IPv6 atomic fragments and a number of interoperability issues
  associated with IPv6 atomic fragments, and concludes that the
  aforementioned functionality is undesirable, thus documenting the
  motivation for removing this functionality in the revision of the
  core IPv6 protocol specification.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2016-08-08
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-08-08
07 Suresh Krishnan Last call was requested
2016-08-08
07 Suresh Krishnan Last call announcement was generated
2016-08-08
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-08-08
07 Suresh Krishnan Ballot writeup was generated
2016-08-08
07 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2016-07-17
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-07-17
07 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-07.txt
2016-06-29
06 Suresh Krishnan Still waiting for new revision of the draft
2016-05-27
06 Suresh Krishnan There has been no response to the INT directorate reviews for a month even after multiple reminders.
2016-05-27
06 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2016-05-02
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos.
2016-04-28
06 Ted Lemon Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ted Lemon.
2016-04-21
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon
2016-04-21
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Ted Lemon
2016-04-20
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos
2016-04-20
06 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos
2016-04-18
06 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-04-06
06 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Suresh Krishnan
2016-04-04
06 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-06.txt
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden
Title          : Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
Authors        : Fernando Gont
          …
Title          : Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
Authors        : Fernando Gont
                  Will(Shucheng) Liu
                  Tore Anderson
Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-05.txt
Pages          : 10
Date            : 2016-01-20

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the
proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page
header?

Informational

This is correct as it describes the reasons to deprecate the generation
of atomic fragments that has been included in draft-ietf-rfc2460bis.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  RFC2460 requires that when a host receives an ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big"
  message reporting an MTU smaller than 1280 bytes, the host includes a
  Fragment Header in all subsequent packets sent to that destination,
  without reducing the assumed Path-MTU.  The simplicity with which
  ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages can be forged means that an attacker
  can leverage this functionality (the generation of IPv6 atomic
  fragments) to trigger the use of fragmentation for any arbitrary IPv6
  flow, and subsequently perform any fragmentation-based attack.  This
  document discusses the security implications of the generation of
  IPv6 atomic fragments and a number of interoperability issues
  associated with IPv6 atomic fragments, and concludes that the
  aforementioned functionality is undesirable, thus documenting the
  motivation for removing this functionality in the revision of the
  core IPv6 protocol specification in draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.

Working Group Summary

  The document was developed and adopted in the 6MAN w.g. and the
  deprecating of the remaining case of atomic fragment generation was
  included in draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis based on an earlier standards
  track version of this draft.  After this was done the authors agree to
  remove the RFC2460 update and change the status of this document as
  Informational.

Document Quality

  There is wide support for this document and the relevant changes in
  draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis.  The document has had extensive review in
  the w.g. including reviews by the w.g. chairs.  There are no open
  technical issues.  A few editorial issues have been identified that can
  be dealt with in later versions.

Personnel

  Bob Hinden is the document shepherd.  Brain Haberman is the responsible
  area director.  This is expected to move to Suresh Krishnan.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

  Reviewed the current version of the document and identified a few
  editorial changes.  The document is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

  No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
need for it. In any event, if the interested community has discussed
those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns here.

  No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  The document is informational and doesn't specify anything.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  N/A.


(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  Strong consensus.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No serious ID nits.  The only issues identified are editorial (remove
  reference from abstract and a few references that aren't used)

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

  N/A

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the
interested community considers it unnecessary.

  No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations
procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name
for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  No IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful
in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  None.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  N/A
 
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden Changed document writeup
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden Notification list changed to "Robert M. Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden Document shepherd changed to Robert M. Hinden
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2016-04-03
05 Bob Hinden IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-01-20
05 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-05.txt
2016-01-13
04 Ole Trøan Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2016-01-13
04 Ole Trøan IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-11-27
04 Ole Trøan Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2015-11-26
04 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-04.txt
2015-07-04
03 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-03.txt
2015-07-04
02 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-02.txt
2015-04-27
01 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-01.txt
2014-11-11
00 Fernando Gont New version available: draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation-00.txt