From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jun 3 01:30:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E8AE0724; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 01:30:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ky0SsKvRZp0n; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 01:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2E7E06F1; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 01:30:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110603083050.32741.8432.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:30:50 -0700 Cc: karp@ietf.org Subject: [karp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-01.txt X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:30:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Keying and Authentication for Routing= Protocols Working Group of the IETF. Title : Analysis of OSPF Security According to KARP Design Guide Author(s) : Sam Hartman Dacheng Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-01.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2011-06-03 This document analyzes OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 according to the guidelines set forth in section 4.2 of draft-ietf-karp-design-guide. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-karp-ospf-analysis-01.txt From bew@cisco.com Fri Jun 3 14:20:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C723E07D0 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:20:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KIP37UMHHb9E for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C54DE07CA for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:20:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bew@cisco.com; l=625; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1307136058; x=1308345658; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=r0ab1zY850QNAPvQogCS7jxmc6ykQQZKnhAlCicV/qI=; b=Ko2aLhUpmgyQjV5HVHN0Mwloxmms4bIDHXKHsd8Vq710aMlXoHkNZBBN A/QJvTY0C5pqR3yXFkLH6NjvKS3HTcPYVlfuc9lNC8XKCNuR6ZEAu9FJQ 6JUkwEqjmhtbp8y1DwbJsYqD1sEBTS8r9O+JGrB7zi13UWm+lVgMDsvcB g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjgHABlQ6U2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABTmCWOIHeqf4EdnWKGIQSGcIoEj1k X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,316,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="459536700" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2011 21:20:57 +0000 Received: from dhcp-128-107-151-34.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-151-34.cisco.com [128.107.151.34]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p53LKvNB024106 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 21:20:57 GMT From: Brian Weis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:20:58 -0700 Message-Id: <09FCAFAF-70CC-46EB-A2F9-010E124D8E8F@cisco.com> To: karp@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [karp] WG Adoption: draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-01 X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:20:59 -0000 Greetings, The "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Security According to KARP = Design" draft was developed to meet a KARP charter goal. It presented to = KARP in the Prague meeting, and the authors have addressed known = comments made in the meeting and on the list, resulting in = . The authors have asked to make this a WG document. We are requesting = comments from the WG on taking this as the starting point for this WG = work. We would like to hear within the next two weeks, by the end of the = day June 17. Thanks, Brian and Joel From bill@cse.concordia.ca Fri Jun 3 15:16:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD87E0802 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYGWn3z2IY9s for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F197E07F8 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@poise.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.209]) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from bill@cse.concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p53MGdD8028134 for ; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:16:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4DE95D43.3070805@cse.concordia.ca> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:16:35 -0400 From: Bill Atwood Organization: Concordia University, Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: karp@ietf.org References: <09FCAFAF-70CC-46EB-A2F9-010E124D8E8F@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <09FCAFAF-70CC-46EB-A2F9-010E124D8E8F@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2011/06/03 18:16:40 EDT Subject: Re: [karp] WG Adoption: draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-01 X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 22:16:42 -0000 I recommend that this document be adopted as a WG document. Bill On 6/3/2011 5:20 PM, Brian Weis wrote: > Greetings, > > The "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Security According to KARP Design" draft was developed to meet a KARP charter goal. It presented to KARP in the Prague meeting, and the authors have addressed known comments made in the meeting and on the list, resulting in . > > The authors have asked to make this a WG document. We are requesting comments from the WG on taking this as the starting point for this WG work. We would like to hear within the next two weeks, by the end of the day June 17. > > Thanks, > Brian and Joel > > _______________________________________________ > karp mailing list > karp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University EV 3.185 email: bill@cse.concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http: //users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8 From zhangdacheng@huawei.com Mon Jun 6 19:08:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753EA11E809B for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 19:08:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.057 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.057 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CLAcyYwlqklH for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 19:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3D911E8080 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 19:08:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LME00M9JDWEOO@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for karp@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:07:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LME002VHDWEGL@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for karp@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:07:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.32) by szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:07:24 +0800 Received: from SZXEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.140]) by SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.32]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:07:26 +0800 Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:07:25 +0000 From: "Dacheng Zhang(Dacheng)" In-reply-to: <09FCAFAF-70CC-46EB-A2F9-010E124D8E8F@cisco.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.110.98.55] To: Brian Weis , "karp@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [karp] WG Adoption: draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-01 Thread-index: AQHMIjQopGLHy6zqbk6a0fyN7Q/Wh5SxKgKQ X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <09FCAFAF-70CC-46EB-A2F9-010E124D8E8F@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [karp] WG Adoption: draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-01 X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 02:08:18 -0000 SSB0aGluayB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzIHN1aXRhYmxlIHRvIGJlIGFjY2VwdGVkIGFzIGEgV0cgZHJh ZnQuIFNvLCArMS4NCg0KPj4gLS0tLS3Tyrz+1K28/i0tLS0tDQo+PiC3orz+yMs6IGthcnAtYm91 bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmthcnAtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBCcmlhbg0K Pj4gV2Vpcw0KPj4gt6LLzcqxvOQ6IDIwMTHE6jbUwjTI1SA1OjIxDQo+PiDK1bz+yMs6IGthcnBA aWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4+INb3zOI6IFtrYXJwXSBXRyBBZG9wdGlvbjogZHJhZnQtbWFoZXNoLWJncC1s ZHAtbXNkcC1hbmFseXNpcy0wMQ0KPj4gDQo+PiBHcmVldGluZ3MsDQo+PiANCj4+IFRoZSAiQW5h bHlzaXMgb2YgQkdQLCBMRFAsIFBDRVAsIGFuZCBNU0RQIFNlY3VyaXR5IEFjY29yZGluZyB0byBL QVJQDQo+PiBEZXNpZ24iIGRyYWZ0IHdhcyBkZXZlbG9wZWQgdG8gbWVldCBhIEtBUlAgY2hhcnRl ciBnb2FsLiBJdCBwcmVzZW50ZWQgdG8NCj4+IEtBUlAgaW4gdGhlIFByYWd1ZSBtZWV0aW5nLCBh bmQgdGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgaGF2ZSBhZGRyZXNzZWQga25vd24NCj4+IGNvbW1lbnRzIG1hZGUgaW4g dGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgYW5kIG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0LCByZXN1bHRpbmcgaW4NCj4+IDxodHRwOi8vdG9v bHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1tYWhlc2gtYmdwLWxkcC1tc2RwLWFuYWx5c2lzLTAxPi4N Cj4+IA0KPj4gVGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgaGF2ZSBhc2tlZCB0byBtYWtlIHRoaXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1bWVu dC4gV2UgYXJlIHJlcXVlc3RpbmcNCj4+IGNvbW1lbnRzIGZyb20gdGhlIFdHIG9uIHRha2luZyB0 aGlzIGFzIHRoZSBzdGFydGluZyBwb2ludCBmb3IgdGhpcyBXRyB3b3JrLg0KPj4gV2Ugd291bGQg bGlrZSB0byBoZWFyIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgbmV4dCB0d28gd2Vla3MsIGJ5IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgdGhl IGRheSBKdW5lDQo+PiAxNy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gVGhhbmtzLA0KPj4gQnJpYW4gYW5kIEpvZWwNCj4+ IA0KPj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+ IGthcnAgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+PiBrYXJwQGlldGYub3JnDQo+PiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2thcnANCg== From manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Jun 9 08:44:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB0611E808B for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o18zCUvpMvLM for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0785011E80FF for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 08:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p59FiQCV017198 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:44:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub02.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.35]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p59FiP2J027906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 9 Jun 2011 21:14:25 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.59]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 21:14:25 +0530 From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" To: Brian Weis , "karp@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 21:14:23 +0530 Thread-Topic: [karp] WG Adoption: draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-01 Thread-Index: AcwiNFP6SroeZAU4SximVgY44UOiEQEh57eg Message-ID: <7C362EEF9C7896468B36C9B79200D8350CFE6B7CF8@INBANSXCHMBSA1.in.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <09FCAFAF-70CC-46EB-A2F9-010E124D8E8F@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <09FCAFAF-70CC-46EB-A2F9-010E124D8E8F@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Subject: Re: [karp] WG Adoption: draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-01 X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:44:31 -0000 Hi, I am ok with accepting this as a WG document. I have a few comments with th= is draft but nothing that cant wait. Cheers, Manav=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: karp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:karp-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Brian Weis > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 2.51 AM > To: karp@ietf.org > Subject: [karp] WG Adoption: draft-mahesh-bgp-ldp-msdp-analysis-01 >=20 > Greetings, >=20 > The "Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Security According=20 > to KARP Design" draft was developed to meet a KARP charter=20 > goal. It presented to KARP in the Prague meeting, and the=20 > authors have addressed known comments made in the meeting and=20 > on the list, resulting in=20 > . >=20 > The authors have asked to make this a WG document. We are=20 > requesting comments from the WG on taking this as the=20 > starting point for this WG work. We would like to hear within=20 > the next two weeks, by the end of the day June 17. >=20 > Thanks, > Brian and Joel >=20 > _______________________________________________ > karp mailing list > karp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp > = From jmh@joelhalpern.com Mon Jun 13 11:15:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA6011E816C; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d4RO1m0y7jew; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.out.tigertech.net (hgblob-ipv6.tigertech.net [IPv6:2604:4f00::1:0:0:22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E49311E813F; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14E43246437; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from [192.35.166.101] (JMHWork.dhcp.nanog.merit.net [192.35.166.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A80032463A5; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DF653D7.2020205@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:15:51 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lisp@ietf.org" , "karp@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [karp] Fwd: Nomcom 2011-12: Call for Volunteers X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:15:56 -0000 Please consider volunterring for the nominating comittee. Thank you, Joel -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Nomcom 2011-12: Call for Volunteers Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:56:06 -0700 (PDT) From: NomCom Chair To: IETF Announcement list The IETF nominating committee process for 2011-12 has begun. The IETF nominating committee appoints folks to fill the open slots on the IAOC, the IAB, and the IESG. The 10 nominating committee members are selected randomly from a pool of volunteers. The more volunteers, the better the chance we have of choosing a random yet representative cross section of the IETF population. The details of the nomcom process can be found in RFC 3777. To be eligible, volunteers for the nomcom need to have attended 3 of the past 5 IETF meetings as of the time this announcement goes out (i.e. IETF76-IETF80). If you qualify, and are not seeking appointment to any of the open positions this nomcom will be filling, please consider volunteering. The list of people and posts whose terms end with the March 2012 IETF meeting, and thus the positions for which the nominating committee is responsible, are as follows: IAB === Bernard Aboba Hannes Tschofenig Andrei Robachevsky Olaf Kolkman Spencer Dawkins Ross Callon IAOC ==== Marshall Eubanks IESG ==== Peter Saint-Andre (Applications) Jari Arkko (Internet) Dan Romascanu (Operations & Management) Gonzalo Camarillo (RAI) Stewart Bryant (Routing) Sean Turner (Security) David Harrington (Transport) The primary activity for this nomcom will begin during IETF-81 in Quebec City and should be completed by January 2012. The nomcom will be collecting requirements from the community, as well as talking to candidates and to community members about candidates. There will be regularly scheduled conference calls to ensure progress. Thus, being a nomcom member does require some time commitment. Please volunteer by sending an email to me before 11:59 pm EDT July 10, 2011 as follows: To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Subject: Nomcom 2011-12 Volunteer Please include the following information in the body of the mail: Full Name: // As you enter in the IETF Registration Form, // First/Given name followed by Last/Family Name Current Primary Affiliation: // typically what goes in the Company // field in the IETF Registration Form Email Address(es): // all email addresses used to Register for the // past 5 IETF meetings // Please designate a Preferred email address for // contact if there is more than one email address Telephone number: // With country code (for confirmation if selected) Please expect an email response from me within 3 business days stating whether or not you are qualified. If you do not receive a response in this timeframe, please re-send your email with the tag "RESEND:" added to the subject line. If you are not yet sure you would like to volunteer, please consider that nomcom members play a very important role in shaping the leadership of the IETF. Ensuring the leadership of the IETF is fair and balanced and comprised of those who can lead the IETF in the right direction is an important responsibility that rests on the IETF participants at large. Volunteering for the nomcom is a good way of contributing in that direction. I will be publishing a more detailed target timetable, as well as details of the randomness seeds to be used for the RFC 3797 selection process within the next few days. Thank you in advance for your participation. Suresh Krishnan Nomcom Chair 2011-2012 Email: nomcom-chair@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From jmh@joelhalpern.com Tue Jun 14 16:26:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3274711E80DF; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QPOOmY7ksVs6; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.out.tigertech.net (hgblob-ipv6.tigertech.net [IPv6:2604:4f00::1:0:0:22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A950E228009; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CAF3245A6C; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:26:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from [192.35.166.101] (JMHWork.dhcp.nanog.merit.net [192.35.166.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AA6B3244006; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DF7EE3C.9090307@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:26:52 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stewart Bryant Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: IESG Secretary , "karp@ietf.org" Subject: [karp] Submission of draft-ietf-karp-design-guide-02 for Informational RFC Publication X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:26:57 -0000 This is the document shepherd writeup for the request by the KARP working group that draft-ietf-karp-design-guide-02 (Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines) be published as an Informational RFC. As per the proto writeup description: 1.a: Joel Halpern, co-chair of the KARP working group, is the document shepherd for this document. He has personally reviewed the most current version of this document, and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. 1.b: The document has had sufficient review both inside and outside of the WG. More reviews would have been appreciated, but I (and my co-chair) believe that sufficient review did occur.) 1.c: I have no concerns that specific areas were under-reviewed. There were sufficient routing and security reviews of the document. 1.d: I do not have any concerns or issues with this document. During review, it was noted that the process used may evolve past what is described here. It is believed that this is a good process, and a good documented baseline for the working group to work with. 1.e: There is solid WG consensus behind this document. There may still be a small number of security experts who are uncomfortable with the basic approach, the document approach matches the agreement document in the charter, and re-confirmed recently on the WG email list. 1.f: There are no known threatened appeals or indications of extreme unhappiness. 1.g: The document passes id-nits checks. There is a warning about page length, which will presumably resolved in final editing. 1.h: The document properly splits its references. There are no blocking references. 1.i: There are no IANA issues in the document, and there is a placeholder section stating that. 1.j: There is no formal lanuage usage in the document. 1.k: Draft Writeup: Technical Summary Existing IAB work recommends the tightening of the security of the core routing infrastructure. This document defines a roadmap of protocol specification work for the use of modern cryptographic mechanisms and algorithms for message authentication in routing protocol. It also defines a path towards the use of key management protocols in conjunction with routing protocol authentication mechanisms. Working Group Summary: The working group support publication of this document as an informational document. If there is significant evolution in practice based on experience with this, a revision may be published if that is deemed useful for future reference. Document Quality: As a guideline document for future work, there is not a machine implementation. It is to be noted that some folks have been bypassing the procedures in this document. It is hoped that Tf approval of the document will provide support for better inter-working-group cooperation to make this process work well for all concerned. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Jun 16 07:33:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DD711E81A0; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:33:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.276 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.323, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6mtulac8amPT; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A8D11E818E; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110616143311.1752.85213.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:33:11 -0700 Cc: karp@ietf.org Subject: [karp] Last Call: (Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:33:13 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols WG (karp) to consider the following document: - 'Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-06-30. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In the March of 2006 the IAB held a workshop on the topic of "Unwanted Internet Traffic". The report from that workshop is documented in RFC 4948 [RFC4948]. Section 8.2 of RFC 4948 calls for [t]ightening the security of the core routing infrastructure." Four main steps were identified for improving the security of the routing infrastructure. One of those steps was "securing the routing protocols' packets on the wire." One mechanism for securing routing protocol packets on the wire is the use of per-packet cryptographic message authentication, providing both peer authentication and message integrity. Many different routing protocols exist and they employ a range of different transport subsystems. Therefore there must necessarily be various methods defined for applying cryptographic authentication to these varying protocols. Many routing protocols already have some method for accomplishing cryptographic message authentication. However, in many cases the existing methods are dated, vulnerable to attack, and/or employ cryptographic algorithms that have been deprecated. This document is one of a series concerned with defining a roadmap of protocol specification work for the use of modern cryptographic mechanisms and algorithms for message authentication in routing protocols. In particular, it defines the framework for a key management protocol that may be used to create and manage session keys for message authentication and integrity. The overall roadmap reflects the input of both the security area and routing area in order to form a jointly agreed upon and prioritized work list for the effort. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-karp-design-guide/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-karp-design-guide/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From stbryant@cisco.com Thu Jun 16 08:19:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58559E8040; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:19:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7zDqDNdnQX9B; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF669E8030; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:19:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=279; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1308237564; x=1309447164; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=S9zGN1LdAe6MntNsvalgmpYl7kzhVxXjIASs+75VgzM=; b=eYIfbGIFDafj4wUSAsXfpslcw7R+NUEl4LNB0NX7g41llePFBZcJmXX1 SrIKN/R8Uq9eBSQ/l96JpbjtX1Y1i6K+JRmAE2RbYhMI0XHHAOO3eNt9b ++A2XX1mQLs/8bVIZwDASdNWKvrteYFYAEsZWWcmCAvXjht6Cbt+khowO k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAMke+k2Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABSpmB3qx6DDw8BmwSGJwSRWY93 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,375,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="35546260" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2011 15:19:06 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5GFJ1sb028328; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:19:01 GMT Received: from dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-106.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id p5GFJ0qB015263; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:19:00 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4DFA1F0E.8030401@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:19:42 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 00000@cisco.com, karp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ospf@ietf.org, ospf-chairs@tools.ietf.org, "karp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [karp] Review request draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3 X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:19:25 -0000 KARP WG, A publication request has been made for the following draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3/ I am sending it to you for your review. Please provide any comments that you may have by Friday 1st July. Thanks Stewart From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Jun 18 06:00:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1031911E80D0; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:00:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rAWenWzK-njy; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:00:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE3011E8073; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:00:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110618130054.12816.9839.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:00:54 -0700 Cc: karp@ietf.org Subject: [karp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-03.txt X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:00:55 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Keying and Authentication for Routing= Protocols Working Group of the IETF. Title : The Threat Analysis and Requirements for Cryptographic A= uthentication of Routing Protocols' Transports Author(s) : Gregory Lebovitz Manav Bhatia Russ White Filename : draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-03.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2011-06-18 Different routing protocols exist and each employs its own mechanism for securing the protocol packets on the wire. While most already have some method for accomplishing cryptographic message authentication, in many cases the existing methods are dated, vulnerable to attack, and employ cryptographic algorithms that have been deprecated. The "Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols" (KARP) effort aims to overhaul and improve these mechanisms. This document has two main parts - the first describes the threat analysis for attacks against routing protocols' transports and the second enumerates the requirements for addressing the described threats. This document, along with the KARP design guide will be used by KARP design teams for specific protocol review and overhaul. This document reflects the input of both the IETF's Security Area and Routing Area in order to form a jointly agreed upon guidance. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-03.txt From bew@cisco.com Wed Jun 22 16:43:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A96911E80BF for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.371 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PF-SGGHa3jNV for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F2DE11E80BD for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.44.98] by nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2011 23:43:42 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.80] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2011 23:43:42 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2011 23:43:42 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 512801.21537.bm@omp1017.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 45377 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2011 23:43:42 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1308786222; bh=hyaCXHOwea4LgtThbemAJICMQDt1yg+T0yxYxpQC1KE=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:Date:Message-Id:Cc:To:Mime-Version:X-Mailer; b=eZnSH/kfayYSh2+bGd8dgnWMmo9nVB+XnK8g7T5K3fevVSjNLqc4/FdoT4xFxmh+cRrsogCAWaJnSlSzP96Rt2vToCouID7/gY7yse/NhfsNBpVwtJ6qZaUP6D3BeeW/Tik6eJ3HQFLPPWHq7rTsexFap/QUcuwfwVHydiicW6k= Received: from sjc-vpn3-1309.cisco.com (bew@128.107.239.233 with plain) by smtp102.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2011 16:43:41 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: 32nDaXmswBB_JniSOQ0NY72Nq.3.ushdrbBADol90kQ- X-YMail-OSG: LPZqPhcVM1lY6NHCNrNYZjoWG6pfu5u8i3qzysQKn08fjP0 S23rBkj4bBzq6InhhU_VkFMYkBx4FCX49fb9h4K46E0x66QLZdx4LOi85NV. THrvln1k8h5TKtprTaf1IGR0mEaTLZZw7D5g6EkoINHD8pjwQGCqIWjsIRDs zdNzkMp5Fdf.xJ75eroZLT0akCGxAClkRyBEGcZ0FLmSP0Sl60QL64uNAi0S uGBgDjEljpiR7I7RuOnfahHQzdeVoT5yAwHJwgNjlZp.j9ci4sGyQRwBh34s y8bL.PEvb7HYYk9GkT5m2GakyJBzhSxj.Jd7RGUKsgu0zQdqD_07COGxHtSl 5oC8csQtOUOlUVKn5Nu0bYT2dvd2feZql6GmFpedNEeMYO.w3y0eguNa8H4W UsWhNtwREj0Bi0ErXskXoa7yuSlba3tc31EqkrBBjQuwX1LMavevOUGIhj3X ygqk2x3jUT6khVA-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: Brian Weis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:43:40 -0700 Message-Id: <60330BFB-1AF0-4D46-A18D-086AADD6B9CF@cisco.com> To: Stewart Bryant Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: The IESG , karp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, karp@ietf.org Subject: [karp] Submission of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-02 for Informational RFC Publication X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:43:43 -0000 This is the document shepherd writeup for the request by the KARP = working group that draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-02 (The Threat Analysis = and Requirements for Cryptographic Authentication of Routing Protocols' = Transports) be published as an Informational RFC. In accordance with , = the following information is provided. (1.a) Brian Weis, co-chair of the KARP working group, is the document = shepherd for this document. He has personally reviewed the most current = version of this document, and believes it is ready for forwarding to the = IESG for publication. (1.b) The document has had sufficient review both inside and outside of = the WG.=20 (1.c) I have no concerns that specific areas were under-reviewed. There = were sufficient routing and security reviews of the document. (1.d) I do not have any concerns or issues with this document.=20 (1.e) WG consensus behind this document was strong; no public opinions = were expressed that it should not be published. (1.f) There are no known threatened appeals. (1.g) The document passes id-nits checks & there are no other reviews = required. (1.h) References are in good shape. (1.i) There are no IANA issues in the document, and there is a = placeholder section stating that. (1.j) There is no formal language usage in the document. (1.k) Draft Writeup: Technical Summary Existing IAB work recommends the tightening of the security of the = core routing infrastructure. This document provides a threat analysis = for attacks against routing protocols' transports and the then = enumerates the requirements for addressing the described threats. It is = intended to be used by KARP design teams in their analysis of routing = protocols, and will generally be useful in the analysis of routing = protocols. Working Group Summary: The working group support publication of this document as an = informational document. Document Quality: This informational document does not specify a protocol or other = semantics that can be directly implemented, thus there are no machine = implementations. However, in terms of quality it has been reviewed by a = number of security experts. -------- Brian Weis KARP WG co-chair= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jun 27 23:16:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CEA21F8661; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqVsMmSDceRI; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404F421F8626; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:16:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110628061627.3026.91639.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:16:27 -0700 Cc: karp@ietf.org Subject: [karp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-00.txt X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:16:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Keying and Authentication for Routing= Protocols Working Group of the IETF. Title : Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Security According = to KARP Design Guide Author(s) : Mahesh Jethanandani Keyur Patel Lianshu Zheng Filename : draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-00.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2011-06-27 This document analyzes BGP, LDP, PCEP and MSDP according to guidelines set forth in section 4.2 of [draft-ietf-karp-design-guide]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-00= .txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-00.= txt From touch@isi.edu Thu Jun 30 10:24:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1CEB11E8285; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BWZpac55vfda; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B6611E8284; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [75.217.203.236] (236.sub-75-217-203.myvzw.com [75.217.203.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5UHNlGa006404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E0CB121.1050004@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:23:45 -0700 From: Joe Touch User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org" , IETF discussion list , karp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-karp-design-guide@tools.ietf.org References: <4E0C0FB3.8080602@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4E0C0FB3.8080602@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: TSV Dir Subject: [karp] TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-karp-design-guide X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:24:50 -0000 (resending cc'd to the KARP WG rather than SIDR; please respond to this post instead) Hi, all, I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-dir@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. The document discusses design issues for protecting routing protocols. The most problematic issue is the term "on the wire" which is used in various contexts to imply physical, link, network, or transport protocol layers. This needs to be clarified. Transport protection appears to be a potential focus of the design guide, but is inconsistently discussed. In some cases, transport issues are raised (TCP issues for BGP); in other cases, the relevant transport isn't even noted (e.g., RIP over UDP). This should be corrected throughout. It is important for this document to be more clear on what layers were in scope for the design guide, and what guidelines are being given with respect to those layers, even in a general sense. Further information on these issues is provided below. There is additional feedback provided below ("other notes") as a suggestion. I hope this feedback will be useful to the authors, and will be glad to provide further assistance either on- or off-list as useful. Joe --------------------------------------------------------------------- >please note that some of these comments apply to the draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-03 as well; further, there is duplicate text that is not needed in both these docs. FWIW, the threats-reqs doc has many issues as well which are not addressed here. Of the four issues noted in the intro, the last uses the ambiguous term "on the wire". This is confusing in both this and the threats doc, and many times both docs us the term 'wire' or 'bits', all of which would typically indicate either the link layer or the physical media or both. There is no rationale for this focus in either document. The threats document should more clearly indicate *why* protection beyond the routing messages (the SIDR work) is needed, and what the expected threats are. These appear to be: - routing protocols often rely on information in the link, transport or network packets - routing protocols often rely on properties of transport connections to infer reachability, e.g., if a TCP connection cannot stay up, then the endpoint's routes should not be considered reachable (if there are other reasons, please clarify) The threats then appear to be: - spoofing link/network addresses - spoofing transport ports - disrupting the TCP connection (where TCP is used) Note that falsification (as noted in the threats doc) is not in this list since it is (IMO) clearly the purvue of the SIDR work. Also out of scope should have been any of the interference issues, unless the *performance* of the TCP connection needs protection. This doc then may need to protect the link or network protocol ID and/or transport protocol from interference. This should be more clearly stated in the threats doc, IMO, and the term "on the wire" should be avoided. The discussion of multicast should note that multicast can be implemented by broadcast, true multicast, or serial unicast; these may have different security requirements. The document should more clearly indicate the underlying protocol used as a key property of a routing protocol, especially because (as above) this document appears to focus on guidelines for link, network, and/or transport protocols. E.g., the discussion on OSPF, RIP, and ISIS should more clearly indicate that, e.g., RIP runs over UDP, OSPF runs over IP directly, and IS-IS runs natively over L2. Similar info would be useful for BFD, RSVP, etc. The document is unclear on its overall advice, other than a somewhat general description of "do good stuff". E.g., it notes: Not all routing protocol authentication mechanisms provide support for replay attacks, and the design teams should identify such authentication mechanisms and work on them so that this can get fixed. The design teams must look at the protocols that they are working on and see if packets captured from the previous/stale sessions can be replayed. More specific advice would be, e.g.: Not all routing protocol authentication mechanisms provide protection from replay attacks. Such deficiencies should be addressed at that layer, rather than having design teams conclude that such systems thus require lower layer (transport, network, or link) protection from replays. ---- Other notes: Overall, this document would benefit from a revision focused on clarification, where the focus of each section and advice were made more clear. The abstract is excessively detailed and doesn't get to the point until "This document...". Everything preceding that should be removed, and the result should be appended with a few sentences summarizing the recommendations. The intro refers in a lot of detail to the motivation for the doc (some of which may be historically important but is not relevant to the doc itself), but only briefly notes the KARP threats document. This document's observations should be motivated by addressing those threats, so it would be important to summarize them in this doc in the intro as context. The summary of RFC 4984 discusses four tightening steps as if they were indicated by that RFC; that RFC only suggests tightening itself. This doc should more clearly indicate that "The WG identified four...". -----