Subject: [mpls] would the WG like to adopt draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt?

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 13:10:28 +0100

Hiya,

Adrian and I wrote up [1]. How'd the WG feel about adopting
that? If you did, I'd be willing to continue editing if you
wanted. So consider this as a request that the WG take on
this work.

In case it helps, the current abstract is:

"
   This document describes a way to apply opportunistic security
   between adjacent nodes on an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) or
   between end points of an LSP.  It explains how keys may be agreed
   to enable encryption, and how key identifiers are exchanged in
   encrypted MPLS packets.  Finally, this document describes the
   applicability of this approach to opportunistic security in MPLS
   networks with an indication of the level of improved security as
   well as the continued vulnerabilities.

   This document does not describe security for MPLS control plane
   protocols.
"

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:40:32 +0200

Working Group,

<chair hat off>

I've read the draft (a while ago) and I think this document is within
the wg charter and should be progressed by the mpls wg.

(chair hat on>

If I hear nothing to the contrary I will start the process with
mpls-rt review, IPR poll and wg adoption poll first week of May.

There has been some comments, but I think those are address. Please
read and comment on the draft.

/Loa

On 2015-04-17 14:10, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:48:35 +0100

Hiya,

> mpls-rt review, IPR poll and wg adoption poll first week of May.

Thanks Loa. I'm not entirely familiar with the mpls-rt review but
one issue on which I think some detailed requirements-level guidance
would be useful for me is on whether this ought stick with "classic"
integer DH or move to a more modern DH approach based on curve 25519.
If you have reviewers who are familiar with the issues there and
with MPLS performance and implementation requirements that'd be good.
If not, I'm happy to try explain the pros and cons from the security
and crypto POV, either to the reviewers or the list. And that can be
done post-adoption on the list if that's better too, but it'd be a
good thing to bottom out early-ish in the WG process.

> read and comment on the draft.

Yes, I think we've addressed the substantive comments we've so
far seen.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:15:54 +0200

Stephen,

> good thing to bottom out early-ish in the WG process.

The MPLS-RT review is there to give advice to the working group chairs
whether the document is ready to be adopted as a wg doc (if ot addresses
as real problem, if it is likely to be deployed in real networks, etc.)

Once I start the MPLS-RT review I'll look to see if I can find a
reviewer that can look at the DH issues also.

/Loa

--