Re: [openc2-actuator] RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [oasis-tcs/openc2-apsc-stateless-packet-filter] ICMP Patch (#70)

[Vasileios Mavroeidis <vasileim@ifi.uio.no>]

I like the clear approach of having a 5 tuple. In the specificationâs we donât really need to add the icmp codes and types in tables since (for example) we can reference IANA (also a hyperlink) in the description text. 

A text like âICMP types and codes per IANAâ would be appropriate. This also allows us not to mess with any possible updates (new types or depreciations) in the specs. 

And since the description is so simple it can go to both specifications without really adding any text. Its just a thought.

Best, 

Vasileios Mavroeidis â Research Fellow 
Research Group of Information and Cyber Security
SecurityLab
University of Oslo  
+47 40347666 
+44 7490469651

On 14 Feb 2019, at 18:21, Brule, Joseph M <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil> wrote:

At this point, I disagree with the notion of boiling this up to the LSC. 

 

At this point, the only actuator identified that requires ICMP type support is the SLPF.  In the future, if we discover that other actuators need to accommodate, then  we can add, but at this point advise against adding the complexity to the language spec

 

From: Duncan Sparrell <notifications@github.com> 
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:09 PM
To: oasis-tcs/openc2-apsc-stateless-packet-filter <openc2-apsc-stateless-packet-filter@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Brule, Joseph M <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [oasis-tcs/openc2-apsc-stateless-packet-filter] ICMP Patch (#70)

 

@alevere - agree (speaking both as sfractal and as LSC cochair) fully that it should go to LSC.

â
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.<image001.jpg>