Subject: [RPSEC] Draft Status....

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:11:28 -0400 (EDT)

Y'all:

I wasn't in Yokohama (obviously), but I understand there was/is
some confusion in where we are/etc. I think we have two immediate
objectives/goals to fulfill, threats model(s) and
requirements. My general impression is:

-- We should allow as many threat model drafts as
required/needed/presented. Since each of these essentially
represents another way of looking at the problem, there can be,
and probably should be, multiple valid drafts in this area. In
fact, beyond Susan's draft, I know of at least one other draft in
progress on this front (I hope), and the multicast presentation
that was made at this IETF would probably represent another valid
model that we need to look at.

-- We should use these threat models as background towards
producing one (or one set of) requirements model(s).

On this second point, I think we need some discussion. Should
there be one requirements model for interior gateway protocols,
another for exterior gateway protocols, and a third for
multicast? Or should they be unified in one draft? 

Or is it better to see what drafts come forward, and see what
fits and doesn't fit?

I hope to at least have several threat models on the table in
Atlanta, and then to adopt as many as appear to be valid in the
weeks after Atlanta. From there, we can use these models to build
the requirements doc(s) as needed.

In the meantime, specific security recommendations for protocols
are allowed/encouraged as a cross presentation/discussion with
the individual protocol groups. We won't take on specific
protocol proposals as wg items, I don't think (since they will
generally involve modification of the protocol? but it might have
to be case by case), but we can serve as a meeting place for the
rp and security folks in this regard, allowing more eyes and
brains on such proposals. Perhaps the right term would be
"vetting" them (?).

Thoughts? Comments?

We need to get moving--I know it's a new research area, and it's
important to put serious thought into it. But I think we should
have adopted threat models just after Atlanta, and then have at
least some work done on requirements docs to present in March.

:-)

Russ

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

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

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:38:58 -0400

Russ,
     Comments in-line...

Russ White wrote:
> required/needed/presented. 

Completely agree.  We should be seeing slightly different models
based on different variables (e.g. IGP vs. EGP).

> Or is it better to see what drafts come forward, and see what

I would feel better waiting and seeing what comes out.  Then, as
a group, make the decision on the structure of the requirements
models.

I did not see the multicast presentation, but I can envision that
scenario having very different properties based on the routing
protocol being used (e.g. PIM or MOSPF) or any security interaction
with the group management protocol.

> brains on such proposals. Perhaps the right term would be

Sounds reasonable.  I would prefer to have the routing protocol
groups very involved.  Unless we can come up with a security
mechanism that is protocol independent. :)

Brian

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:35:06 -0400 (EDT)

> Completely agree.  We should be seeing slightly different
> models based on different variables (e.g. IGP vs. EGP).

And on differing analysis within each rp area, I think.

> I would feel better waiting and seeing what comes out.  
> Then, as a group, make the decision on the structure of the
> requirements models.
> 
> I did not see the multicast presentation, but I can envision
> that scenario having very different properties based on the
> routing protocol being used (e.g. PIM or MOSPF) or any
> security interaction with the group management protocol.

Any other comments from the list? I'd like to get a concensus
here, and start seeing drafts come forward, so we can build a
full schedule for Atlanta, and have lots to talk about in the
mean time.

> Sounds reasonable.  I would prefer to have the routing
> protocol groups very involved.  Unless we can come up with a
> security mechanism that is protocol independent. :)

Agreed... I'm envisioning that the security parts of the draft
could/would be discussed here, and then the work would be taken
to the protocol wg for actual approval/etc--just so the security
folks involved don't have to watch 14 rp mailing lists and
working groups, but can focus their efforts in one place, and
give us (the rp folks) the best advice possible using as few
resources as possible.

:-)

Russ