Subject: [RPSEC] Chrater Question

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:30:31 -0500 (EST)

Y'all:

From the most recent posts to the lists, I think we have an issue
with the charter we need to think about, and figure out. I
thought we had concensus on this at the first bof meeting, but it
appears that either the concensus has changed, or (?)....

So, the question is:

Should this working only focus on "generic" requirements docs, or
do we believe that there will, by nature, need to be one
requirements doc per routing protocol? If there will be, by
nature, one requirements doc per protocol, should this working
group consider those, or simply refer them to the protocol
working group?

Consider, when answering this, that requirements docs do not
entail suggested changes to the protocols, and could be fed, once
they are rfc'd to the appropriate working group as input towards
protocol changes, if they are handled here. Note also that it
will probably be easier to get security smart people looking at
things here than in the individual routing protocol working
groups.

Should this working group be limited to two documents, a single
threats draft, and a single requirements draft, or is there more
latitude, and more documents which would be appropriate to
address?

Thoughts?

<asbestos suit on>

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

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

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:37:31 -0500

>latitude, and more documents which would be appropriate to

I think both sorts of docs are needed. Higher level documents that 
characterize the threat model and what we mean by security for 
routing, and lower level docs that apply to specific protocols, 
translating the high level requirements into the domains of these 
protocol.  The latter set of docs might be developed by the  WGs 
responsible for the specific protocols, or could be done here, 
depending on what the IESG thinks is appropriate.

Steve

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:39:32 -0500 (EST)

> I think both sorts of docs are needed. Higher level documents
> that characterize the threat model and what we mean by
> security for routing, and lower level docs that apply to
> specific protocols, translating the high level requirements
> into the domains of these protocol.  The latter set of docs
> might be developed by the WGs responsible for the specific
> protocols, or could be done here, depending on what the IESG
> thinks is appropriate.

Okay--but is there a concensus of the working group we can feed
to the AD's to chew on?

:-)

Russ