Subject: FCIP: authors Teleconf call minutes - 1/15/2002

From: "Murali Rajagopal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:32:07 -0800

Minutes taken by Bill Krieg, Lucent Technologies
-------------------------------------------------------

Attendees:
	Ralph Weber,
	Elizabeth Rodriguez,
	Neil Wanamaker,
	Murali Rajagopal,
	Don Fraser,
	Dave Peterson,
	Bob Snively,
	Venkat Rangan,
	K. Hirata,
	Andy Helland, and
	Bill Krieg (designated scribe)

Agenda:
1. Security
2. FCIP Authors list
3. Other

FCIP Author's list discussion:
> Some discussion about D. Black's recent email concerning the number of
authors identified in a document.

> Elizabeth R. - will discuss this issue with the IETF Area Director to
better understand IETF's position.

Security:
> Reviewed Bill's section 9 clarification comments

	1. Section 9.3.2 - Page 37, 3rd paragraph from the top, 2nd sentence ...
I'm not sure what the "active SA entires" implies here?  Where do we discuss
in-active or dormant SA entries? Is there an dormant SAD?

	Comment accepted ... new wording:

	"When a TCP Connection is established between two FCIP_DEs, two
	unidirectional SA's are created for that connection and each SA is
	identified in the form of a Security Parameter Index (SPI). One SA is
	associated with the incoming traffic flow and the other SA is associated
	with the outgoing traffic flow.  The FCIP_DE's at each end of the TCP
	Connection MUST maintain the SPI's for both its incoming and outgoing FCIP
	Encapsulated Frames."

	2. Section 9.3.3 - Page 37, 1st paragraph clarification request

	Comment accepted:

	Revise the text from "... key becomes compromised." in the 2nd sentence to
"... key may become compromised."

	3. Section 9.3.3 - Page 38, 3rd line from top clarification request

	Comment accepted & modified - no change to original comment but the last
paragraph in Section 9.3.3 will be changed to:

	"When a new SPI is created for the outgoing direction, the sending side
SHALL
	begin using it for all new FCIP Encapsulated Frames. Frames that are either
	in-flight, or resent due to TCP retransmissions etc. MAY use either the new
	SPI or the one being replaced."

	4. Section 9.3.3 - Page 38, last paragraph clarification request

	Comment rejected

	5. Section 9.4.1 - Page 38, 1st paragraph clarification request

	Comment accepted and modified

	Text changed from the "FCIP_LEP" reference to an "FCIP Entity".

	6. Section 9.4.1 - Page 38, 2nd paragraph clarification request\

	Comment rejected

	7. Section 9.4.2 - Page 38, 2nd paragraph clarification request

	Comment rejected

	8. Section 9.4.2 - Page 38, 3rd paragraph clarification request

	Comment accepted as is

> Bill to send clarification comments for sections 5, 7, & 8.

> All agreeded to accept Venkat's SF description (item #8 section 9.1) in
the draft

2.  Bob Snively's Duplicate nonce concern...based on Bob's earlier email

>Bob S/Ralph W. lead the discussion and they indicated that this is but one
type of security threat and the draft includes wording that clearly states
that IPSec should be used in these situations.

> Discussion suggested adding some words to the FC-BB-2 draft to address
this security issue.  FC-BB-2 could address this as a security policy
issues.

Draft status
> Elizabeth R. - Rev 8 to IETF office by Tuesday (2 week before meeting
starts).

Next Authors call - Wed 1/23/2002 4-6pm EST
> Anil R. (McData).  Murali will check with Anil.