Subject: Fwd: WG Action: Routing Protocol Security Requirements (rpsec)

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:46:03 -0700

Folks,

 In case someone missed the announcement, RPSEC has been
 approved as a WG.

 Regarding the chairmanship--we're still in the process
 here. Bill kindly agreed to help as the co-chair until
 we're there.

 See you in Yokohama.

Alex

This is a forwarded message
From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
To: 
Cc: 
Date: Tuesday, July 02, 2002, 6:12:10 AM
Subject: WG Action: Routing Protocol Security Requirements (rpsec)

===8<==============Original message text===============

A new IETF working group has been established in the Routing Area.
Please contact the Area Directors or WG CHairs for additional
information.

Routing Protocol Security Requirements (rpsec)
----------------------------------------------

 Current Status: Active Working Group

 Chair(s):
     Bill Fenner  <[email-masked]>
     Russ White  <[email-masked]>

 Routing Area Director(s):
     Bill Fenner  <[email-masked]>
     Alex Zinin  <[email-masked]>

 Routing Area Advisor:
     Alex Zinin  <[email-masked]>

 Mailing Lists: 
     General Discussion:[email-masked]
     To Subscribe:      [email-masked]
         In Body:       (un)subscribe
     Archive:           http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rpsec

Description of Working Group:

The lack of a common set of security requirements and methods for
routing protocols has resulted in a wide variety of security mechanisms
for individual routing protocols. Ongoing work on requirements for the
next generation routing system and future work on the actual mechanisms
for it will require well documented routing security requirements.

The products of this working group will be used by routing protocol
designers to ensure adequate coverage of security in the future,
including well known and possible threats.

The scope of work is limited to router-to-router protocols only for
both unicast and multicast systems, and does NOT include host-to-router
protocol such as IGMP, ICMP, ARP, or ND. It is also a non-goal at this
point to produce new or change the current security mechanisms in the
existing routing protocols.

The RPSEC working group is charged with the following tasks:

- Document threat models for routing systems

- Document security requirements for routing systems

- Provide a common area for discussion between security and routing
  experts on the topic of securing the routing system

Possible Future Work

- Evaluate and document existing and proposed routing security
  mechanisms with respect to established RPSEC requirements

- Recommend mechanism(s)

 Goals and Milestones:

   JUL 02       Submit initial I-D (or set of I-Ds) which details the 
                threats to routing systems. 

   OCT 02       Submit initial I-D (or set of I-Ds) which outlines security 
                requirements for routing systems. 

   DEC 02       Submit I-Ds documenting threats to routing systems for 
                publication as Informational RFC. 

   MAR 03       Submit the I-D documenting security requirements to routing 
                systems for publication as Informational RFC. 

   MAR 03       Evaluate progress, recharter with new goals (see possible 
                future work above) or shutdown. 

===8<===========End of original message text===========

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