Subject: [Isms] isms core documents last call status

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:26:40 +0200

Hi,

the WG last call on the core ISMS documents has so far resulted in the
following reviews (let me know if the data below is incorrect):

draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-09.txt                       BW, TP, JS
draft-ietf-isms-transport-security-model-05.txt   BW, TP, DR, JS
draft-ietf-isms-secshell-08.txt                   BW, WH, JS

[BW] = Bert Wijnen
[TP] = Tom Petch
[DR] = Dan Romascanu
[JS] = Joe Salowey
[WH] = Wes Hardacker

While some very good people reviewed the documents, it would surely
not hurt to have some additional reviews. If there are more people
here who have read the documents but kept silence since they did not
have an issue to post, please let me know. If you did not manage to
read the documents due to vacation time, please still consider to
review the documents and send comments by the end of next week
(September 15th) or contact me if you need more time.

I am now going through the discussions in detail in order to classify
the issues that were brought up to see which are editorial, which are
technical and if there are any issues where the resolution is not
clear. Once I have assembled this list, I will post it here for WG
review and ask Dave to revise the documents. I hope we can deliver the
core documents to the IESG soon.

Since I have to write up the paper work for submission to the IESG, I
am also interested to hear about people planning to implement or
experiment with the ISMS technology. While there have been several
indications in the past, it surely helps me if people interested to
implement/experiment contact me again so that I have an up-to-date
view on things.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:04:10 +0200

Juergen,

I have also read draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-09 and have no major comments or
issues by now. The second paragraph in 1.3 may cause some discussions
later, if it said just that non capitalized words would normally be
interpreted as in plain English it would be good enough and
non-controversial IMO. This is not major however. 

I have read a previous version of draft-ietf-isms-secshell and was happy
enough about where this was going. If I will have tome to read the
latest version and comment back I'll let you know. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:27 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Isms] isms core documents last call status
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the WG last call on the core ISMS documents has so far 
> resulted in the following reviews (let me know if the data 
> below is incorrect):
> 
> While some very good people reviewed the documents, it would 
> surely not hurt to have some additional reviews. If there are 
> more people here who have read the documents but kept silence 
> since they did not have an issue to post, please let me know. 
> If you did not manage to read the documents due to vacation 
> time, please still consider to review the documents and send 
> comments by the end of next week (September 15th) or contact 
> me if you need more time.
> 
> I am now going through the discussions in detail in order to 
> classify the issues that were brought up to see which are 
> editorial, which are technical and if there are any issues 
> where the resolution is not clear. Once I have assembled this 
> list, I will post it here for WG review and ask Dave to 
> revise the documents. I hope we can deliver the core 
> documents to the IESG soon.
> 
> Since I have to write up the paper work for submission to the 
> IESG, I am also interested to hear about people planning to 
> implement or experiment with the ISMS technology. While there 
> have been several indications in the past, it surely helps me 
> if people interested to implement/experiment contact me again 
> so that I have an up-to-date view on things.
> 
> /js
> 
> --

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:18:39 +0200

> latest version and comment back I'll let you know. 

Thanks for letting me know and yes it would be nice if you can also
take a look at the latest version of the secshell document.

/js

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:07:50 +0200

Juergen

You are right that I have commented on tmsm and I would regard my comments on
the use of security name and security level (and I deliberately do not use the
RFC3411 terminology here) therein as technical and (as yet) unresolved. Jeffrey
has rightly pointed out that words can be found to support a position - eg
sshtm - but I think that an architecture document should be clearer than that,
particularly over the issue of values being transformed.  Also, it is not
obvious what can and cannot be achieved, as with USM over SSH, which currently
appears infeasible.

The sshtm I-D is more restrictive and so is not such a problem; but I can see a
future working group trying to make sense of tmsm in the way we have tried to
make sense of eg authoritative, context engines, informs etc

Tom Petch