Subject: RE: [NSIS] Short Review of draft-shore-ntlp-00.txt

From: "Geib, Ruediger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:31:13 +0200

Hi John,

is it correct to draw the conclusion that you don't feel Melinda's 
draft to be a bit short on security? The security section 
currently reads:
we need to determine exactly what we're protecting and why.

Regards, Rüdiger

|Hi all,
|
|I'm doing a quick review on documents to be discussed at IETF 57.
|
|As this document is quite preliminary, I don't intend to give 
|a detailed review, but an initial overview of the document.
|
|http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shore-ntlp-00.txt

[snip]

|SUMMARY
|
|The draft has a number of good things going for it, some of 
|the details are quite useful - however, a good editing with
|a view towards simplifying the protocol would be benefitial.

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

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:45:14 -0400

I think it's fair to say that Melinda's draft is quite short
on security.  It seems to me that the security situation
around the layer split is generally not that well-understood
and needs further discussion - I'm not sure that it's
meaningful to go through the list of security facets
(privacy, integrity protection, etc.) and say "we need this,
this, and this" at this point because we're not as clear as
we need to be, I think, about what the issues are at the
NTLP layer.  Some are probably obvious (replay protection)
but some are not, and there are some very difficult issues
around both keying and authorization.  There are some
efforts elsewhere within the IETF that may or may not have
some relevance (soBGP, for example).  I'd actually like to
see a separate security design team for the NTLP.

Melinda