Subject: [OPSEC] Notes from IETF...

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:33:48 -0700

During IETF 71 I had an opportunity to meet with our illustrious ADs and 
whomever I could gather from the mailing list, I have a couple of notes.

Outstanding Documents -
It was proffered that we should clear the dormant or dead documents from 
the iesg queue with the exception of:

draft-ietf-opsec-filter-caps

Which we belive can be rehabilited in the near term.

That means these docs (I hope Ron will correct me if I missed any) are 
on the chopping block.

draft-ietf-opsec-framework
draft-ietf-opsec-logging-caps
draft-ietf-opsec-routing-capabilities

With that, the work that started with 3871 will be done, even if it's 
not finished. Anyone who has thoughts on this should chime in.

Work items -
The next order order of business is getting some new work items accepted 
  under our proposed charter.

There has not been much movement of late on the ICMP filtering and rate 
limiting discussion so we probably want to refresh our understanding of 
where that document is an get something submitted by May.

I haven't gotten any updates on other action items since prior to IETF 
though I will make it a priority to follow-up

New Work Items -
Danny Mcpherson has been working on an document aimed at routing policy 
basics in light of some of the highly publicized events of late (not 
that they don't happen all the time, however it is timely since 
attention has directed concern in the appropriate places) that might be 
well aligned with this working group if he'll put up with us. ;)

Related IETF activities -
I have been watching SIDR with some degree of interest. It remains to be 
seen in my opinion when the pain associated with securing routing 
announcements is lower than the pain associated with not doing it. When 
I look at the security "hacks"that have been successfully deployed in 
support of the routing system, things like the ttl hack or tcp MD5 the 
benefits were immediately available with incremental deployment, 
obviously they were aimed at securing the communications not the 
contents. Can we reap benefits from incremental SIDR deployment that are 
sufficiently compelling to negate the pain points?

Those are the thoughts that I've collected post-IETF, thanks for your 
indulgence.

joelja
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:45:18 +0200 (EET)

> not finished. Anyone who has thoughts on this should chime in.

draft-ietf-opsec-infrastructure-security also expired.  Which category 
should that go?  draft-ietf-opsec-efforts has not expired yet, which 
category is that?

Could you elaborate a bit on the reasons for this chopping?  If there 
was an explanation before, I have missed it.

> New Work Items -

Some folks have expressed interest in me pursuing 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savola-rtgwg-backbone-attacks-03 in 
some forum.  It's not obvious to me whether this is generic enough to 
be published as an RFC and/or to be taken up as a WG work item. I'd 
welcome comments on this point, on- or off-list.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:35:30 -0700

Pekka Savola wrote:
> should that go? 

It apparently escaped my noticed. I believe that it should be removed 
from queue. I am willing to entertain alternate actions if someone would 
care to speak up in it's defense or of the others for that matter.

> draft-ietf-opsec-efforts has not expired yet, which 
> category is that?

The opsec efforts draft doesn't expire till june. I would observe that 
this documents utility is principally related to the frequency of it's 
update since much of the information it contains becomes stale over time 
(this is just my opinion, someone correct me if I'm wrong). For this 
reason we did not (I think) envision it falling off the truck.

> was an explanation before, I have missed it.

To clear the queue of moribund items. If we're not going to advance 
something there's little use in leaving it around in the dead state.

> some forum.  It's not obvious to me whether this is generic enough to be 
> published as an RFC and/or to be taken up as a WG work item. I'd welcome 
> comments on this point, on- or off-list.

I believe that it would be within scope of this working group to have 
that as a work item. Other opinions would be appreciated...

---

From: George M Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:32:52 -0400

Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> he dead state.

I thought, and think that it is a good document and should be in scope.

---George

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:35:44 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of George M Jones
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:33 PM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: opsec wg mailing list
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Notes from IETF...
> 
> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> >
> > he dead state.
> >
> > >> New Work Items -
> > >
> > > some forum.  It's not obvious to me whether this is 
> generic enough 
> > > to be published as an RFC and/or to be taken up as a WG 
> work item. 
> > > I'd welcome comments on this point, on- or off-list.
> >

I agree. 

Dan
(speaking as a contributor) 
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec