Subject: [Int-area] Consensus call on adopting draft-durand-server-logging-recommendations

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:16:13 -0500

Folks:

During the Intarea working group meeting today, we made a consensus check about adopting the document "Logging Recommendations for Internet-facing Servers" [1] as a working group document, showing a clear majority of attendees in favor.  We would now like to initiate a confirming consensus call here on the mailing list.

Please answer the following question with either "yes" or "no":  Should the Intarea working group adopt the document "Logging Recommendations for Internet-facing Servers" [1] as a working group document?  Please respond before Friday, November 26, 2010.

- Julien and Christian

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-durand-server-logging-recommendations

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:24:43 -0800

Was there any discussion as to why this would be appropriate for the 
INTAREA WG?

Rather than have a document that talks so specifically about how to 
handle this particular issue, there ought to be a doc, IMO, that says 
how NATs play with the basic Internet rules. I.e., that they MUST act as 
a host to their public side, and they MUST act as a router to their 
private side.

Once you do that, things like which address you log on which side are 
already determined. The benefit would be that this would address more 
than just logging - it would address things like ICMP, IPv4 ID number 
generation, etc.

Joe

On 11/11/2010 3:16 AM, Christian Vogt wrote:
> Folks:
>
> During the Intarea working group meeting today, we made a consensus
> check about adopting the document "Logging Recommendations for
> Internet-facing Servers" [1] as a working group document, showing a
> clear majority of attendees in favor. We would now like to initiate a
> confirming consensus call here on the mailing list.
>
> Please answer the following question with either "yes" or "no":
> Should the Intarea working group adopt the document "Logging
> Recommendations for Internet-facing Servers" [1] as a working group
> document? Please respond before Friday, November 26, 2010.

> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:16:20 +0000

There is already a document that talks about problems with shared
addressing, and it has several references to documents that already cover
the issues that are specifically NAT related. I think it'd be better to keep
the focus on NAT behavior there, and make suggestions for updates as
necessary if those documents are missing things.

The reason why I think that this should be a standalone draft is that this
is an issue that goes well beyond NAT operators, because it matters for the
folks on the other side. You bury it in a doc about NATs, and your intended
audience doesn't read it, because "I'm not doing this in my network."
Really, this is trying to raise the visibility of the side effect to the
rest of the Internet of large scale NAT elsewhere in the network - if you
want to report a security, copyright, abuse, LI issue, you now need more
information to map that to the single user that you are complaining about.

Wes George

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Joe Touch
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:25 AM
To: Christian Vogt
Cc: [email-masked]; Julien Laganier; Internet Area Mailing List; Alain
Durand; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Consensus call on adopting
draft-durand-server-logging-recommendations

Was there any discussion as to why this would be appropriate for the INTAREA
WG?

Rather than have a document that talks so specifically about how to handle
this particular issue, there ought to be a doc, IMO, that says how NATs play
with the basic Internet rules. I.e., that they MUST act as a host to their
public side, and they MUST act as a router to their private side.

Once you do that, things like which address you log on which side are
already determined. The benefit would be that this would address more than
just logging - it would address things like ICMP, IPv4 ID number generation,
etc.

Joe

>
> - Julien and Christian
>
> [1] 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-durand-server-logging-recommendations
>
>

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:37:15 -0800

Joe,

The behave wg is chartered to document NATs in various forms. They have number of drafts that talk about logging on the NAT side.

This document talks about the log on the server side. It is a follow-up of the "issues with address sharing" document that is in the intarea working group and is right now send for publication as informational RFC.

Alain.

Sent from my iPhone