Skip to main content

IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Version 2 (PDMv2) Destination Option
draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tpauly@apple.com, warren@kumari.net
Subject: Protocol Action: 'IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Version 2 (PDMv2) Destination Option' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-08.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Version 2 (PDMv2) Destination
   Option'
  (draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IP Performance Measurement Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Mahesh Jethanandani.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   RFC8250 describes an optional Destination Option (DO) header embedded
   in each packet to provide sequence numbers and timing information as
   a basis for measurements.  As this data is sent in clear-text, this
   may create an opportunity for malicious actors to get information for
   subsequent attacks.  This document defines PDMv2 which has a
   lightweight handshake (registration procedure) and encryption to
   secure this data.  Additional performance metrics which may be of use
   are also defined.

Working Group Summary

   This document received support and reviews from the WG as a whole, although
the primary reviewers and commenters were a slightly different subset from
the normally most active IPPM members. This is due to the fact that IPPM
has several different "tracks" of participation, where subsets of the community
are more focused on their own topics. However, the consensus and support
of those who did comment was pretty clear.

There were no particular controversies during the development of the document.
Much of the development and iteration on the draft was in trying to refine the
security aspects, and going back and forth with SECDIR reviewers.

Document Quality

   Implementations have been tested at hackathons with results presented
at WG meetings.

This document is a new version of a protocol previously developed in IPPM, and
is primarily focused within the group.


Personnel

   Tommy Pauly is DS. 
   Warren "Ace" Kumari is RAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RFC Editor Note