From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 9 20:22:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861183A67E7; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:22:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1263A68B7 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:22:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Evg79QKRWTgh for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7597F3A6765 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:22:41 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Message-Id:From:To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:Cc:X-Mailer; b=MClrKiEyZu1k7k9g6PgXbo7VeaxFfwOIVtmWJIIrdtCN4rQqR2QxdkRkHKb3s0ZfjRyVaAK/+zfmaKYGVUerzqL6jeEMKfR/HirBkBY4hpJ+n0HfjHWW1GoOH5mesDBo; Received: from [199.212.90.30] (helo=yxu1b30.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KGmof-0009lX-DS; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:27:34 +0000 Message-Id: From: Joe Abley To: opsec@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:22:46 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, The charter of the opsec working group saw some active review some time ago, and the result was the text included below. You'll note that we have deliberately included a near-empty set of milestones. It is the opinion of the chairs that a working group with a charter such as this is by its very nature open-ended, and that assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is guaranteed to have no final destination makes no sense. It is entirely possible that the IESG will disagree, and that we will have to revisit this; however, our ADs are supportive of this approach. Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group last-call on this revised charter, We would very much like to hear active responses from people here about the text below, to confirm that we have consensus and not just a broken list. However, we also encourage people to review previous discussions on this list through its archive to avoid re-hashing old discussions unnecessarily. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC. Thanks, Joe and Joel > Goals: > > The OPSEC WG will document best current practices with regard to > network security. In particular an effort will be made to clarify > the rational supporting current operational practice, address gaps > in currently understood best practices for forwarding, control > plane, and management plane security and make clear the liabilities > inherent in security practices where they exist. > > Scope: > > The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection and > secure operation of the forwarding, control and management planes. > > Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing > operational security practices documents and proposals for new > approaches to operational challenges are in scope. > > Method: > > It is expected that the work product of the working group will fall > into the category of best current practices documents. Taxonomy or > problem statement documents may provide a basis for best current > practices documents. > > Best Current Practices Document > > For each topic addressed, a document will be produced that attempts > to capture current practices related to secure operation. This will > be primarily based on operational experience. Each entry will list: > > * threats addressed, > * current practices for addressing the threat, > * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing > that are used to address the threat, > * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing > tools or technologies. > > Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents > > A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular > operational security challenge or problem space without necessarily > coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document > might be a precursor to a best common practices document. > > While the principal input of the Working Group are operational > experience and needs, the output should be directed both to provide > guidance to the operators community as well as to Working Groups > that develop protocols or the community of protocol developers at > large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols. > > Non-Goals: > > The Operations security working group is not the place to do new > protocols or requirements documents. > > New protocol development or requirements work should be addressed in > a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as individual > submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related to the > practices of using such work. > > Goals and Milestones: > > July 2008 Complete charter _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 10 03:18:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823BB3A69E0; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:18:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094043A69E1 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:18:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S-tzbrra2stK for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (smtp-bedford.mitre.org [129.83.20.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ABD3A69E0 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6AAIYPI004572 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:18:34 -0400 Received: from IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG (imcfe1.mitre.org [129.83.29.3]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6AAIYih004562; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:18:34 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV4.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.161]) by IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:18:33 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:18:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call Thread-Index: AcjiPEOMpgH2kAeuSD2/CVUx9PukQgAOfg3z From: "Jones, George" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 10:18:33.0862 (UTC) FILETIME=[4EF2EA60:01C8E276] Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1000894506==" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1000894506== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8E276.3BEF119C" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E276.3BEF119C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 TG9va3MuIEdvb2QuDQoNCk9ubHkgY29tbWVudC9xdWVzdGlvbiBpcyBvbiBzY29wZS4NCkRvIHlv dSBpbnRlbmQgdGhhdCBldmV5IGRldmljZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRpbmcNCklQIGJlIGluIHNjb3BlICh0 aGF0J3MgaG93IEkgcmVhZCB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0KQ0KT3IgZG8geW91IHRoaW5rIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJl IHVzZWZ1bCANClRvIHRyeSB0byBsaW1pdCB0aGUgc2NvcGUgdG8gZGV2aWNlcw0KUHJvdmlkaW5n IHRyYW5zaXQgKGVnIGlzcC9uc3AvZW50ZXJwcmlzZSANCkNvcmUvZWRnZSBkZXZpY2VzKSA/ICAN Cg0KLS0tZ2VvcmdlIGpvbmVzDQoNCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCkZyb206 IG9wc2VjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgPG9wc2VjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpUbzogb3Bz ZWNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgPG9wc2VjQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU2VudDogV2VkIEp1bCAwOSAyMzoyMjo0NiAy MDA4DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbT1BTRUNdIHJldmlzZWQgb3BzZWMgY2hhcnRlciB3b3JraW5nLWdyb3Vw IGxhc3QgY2FsbA0KDQpIaSBhbGwsDQoNClRoZSBjaGFydGVyIG9mIHRoZSBvcHNlYyB3b3JraW5n IGdyb3VwIHNhdyBzb21lIGFjdGl2ZSByZXZpZXcgc29tZSAgDQp0aW1lIGFnbywgYW5kIHRoZSBy ZXN1bHQgd2FzIHRoZSB0ZXh0IGluY2x1ZGVkIGJlbG93Lg0KDQpZb3UnbGwgbm90ZSB0aGF0IHdl IGhhdmUgZGVsaWJlcmF0ZWx5IGluY2x1ZGVkIGEgbmVhci1lbXB0eSBzZXQgb2YgIA0KbWlsZXN0 b25lcy4gSXQgaXMgdGhlIG9waW5pb24gb2YgdGhlIGNoYWlycyB0aGF0IGEgd29ya2luZyBncm91 cCB3aXRoICANCmEgY2hhcnRlciBzdWNoIGFzIHRoaXMgaXMgYnkgaXRzIHZlcnkgbmF0dXJlIG9w ZW4tZW5kZWQsIGFuZCB0aGF0ICANCmFzc2VtYmxpbmcgYSBkZXRhaWxlZCBzZXQgb2Ygd2F5cG9p bnRzIG9uIGEgam91cm5leSB0aGF0IGlzIGd1YXJhbnRlZWQNCnRvIGhhdmUgbm8gZmluYWwgZGVz dGluYXRpb24gbWFrZXMgbm8gc2Vuc2UuIEl0IGlzIGVudGlyZWx5IHBvc3NpYmxlICANCnRoYXQg dGhlIElFU0cgd2lsbCBkaXNhZ3JlZSwgYW5kIHRoYXQgd2Ugd2lsbCBoYXZlIHRvIHJldmlzaXQg dGhpczsgIA0KaG93ZXZlciwgb3VyIEFEcyBhcmUgc3VwcG9ydGl2ZSBvZiB0aGlzIGFwcHJvYWNo Lg0KDQpKb2VsIGFuZCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gcmVxdWVzdCBhIG9uZSB3ZWVrIHdvcmtpbmct Z3JvdXAgbGFzdC1jYWxsIG9uDQp0aGlzIHJldmlzZWQgY2hhcnRlciwNCg0KV2Ugd291bGQgdmVy eSBtdWNoIGxpa2UgdG8gaGVhciBhY3RpdmUgcmVzcG9uc2VzIGZyb20gcGVvcGxlIGhlcmUgIA0K YWJvdXQgdGhlIHRleHQgYmVsb3csIHRvIGNvbmZpcm0gdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBh bmQgbm90IGp1c3QgYQ0KYnJva2VuIGxpc3QuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIHdlIGFsc28gZW5jb3VyYWdlIHBl b3BsZSB0byByZXZpZXcgcHJldmlvdXMgIA0KZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb24gdGhpcyBsaXN0IHRocm91 Z2ggaXRzIGFyY2hpdmUgdG8gYXZvaWQgcmUtaGFzaGluZyBvbGQgIA0KZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgdW5u ZWNlc3NhcmlseS4NCg0KICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL29w c2VjL2N1cnJlbnQvbWFpbGxpc3QuaHRtbA0KDQpUaGUgbGFzdC1jYWxsIHdpbGwgZW5kIG9uIFRo dXJzZGF5IDIwMDgtMDctMTcgMDQwMCBVVEMuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KDQpKb2UgYW5kIEpvZWwN Cg0KPiBHb2FsczoNCj4NCj4gVGhlIE9QU0VDIFdHIHdpbGwgZG9jdW1lbnQgYmVzdCBjdXJyZW50 IHByYWN0aWNlcyB3aXRoIHJlZ2FyZCB0byAgDQo+IG5ldHdvcmsgc2VjdXJpdHkuIEluIHBhcnRp Y3VsYXIgYW4gZWZmb3J0IHdpbGwgYmUgbWFkZSB0byBjbGFyaWZ5ICANCj4gdGhlIHJhdGlvbmFs IHN1cHBvcnRpbmcgY3VycmVudCBvcGVyYXRpb25hbCBwcmFjdGljZSwgYWRkcmVzcyBnYXBzICAN Cj4gaW4gY3VycmVudGx5IHVuZGVyc3Rvb2QgYmVzdCBwcmFjdGljZXMgZm9yIGZvcndhcmRpbmcs IGNvbnRyb2wgIA0KPiBwbGFuZSwgYW5kIG1hbmFnZW1lbnQgcGxhbmUgc2VjdXJpdHkgYW5kIG1h a2UgY2xlYXIgdGhlIGxpYWJpbGl0aWVzICANCj4gaW5oZXJlbnQgaW4gc2VjdXJpdHkgcHJhY3Rp Y2VzIHdoZXJlIHRoZXkgZXhpc3QuDQo+DQo+IFNjb3BlOg0KPg0KPiBUaGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgdGhl IE9QU0VDIFdHIGlzIGludGVuZGVkIHRvIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhlIHByb3RlY3Rpb24gYW5kICANCj4g c2VjdXJlIG9wZXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZm9yd2FyZGluZywgY29udHJvbCBhbmQgbWFuYWdlbWVu dCBwbGFuZXMuDQo+DQo+IERvY3VtZW50YXRpb24gb2YgYmVzdCBjb21tb24gcHJhY3RpY2VzLCBy ZXZpc2lvbiBvZiBleGlzdGluZyAgDQo+IG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIHNlY3VyaXR5IHByYWN0aWNlcyBk b2N1bWVudHMgYW5kIHByb3Bvc2FscyBmb3IgbmV3ICANCj4gYXBwcm9hY2hlcyB0byBvcGVyYXRp b25hbCBjaGFsbGVuZ2VzIGFyZSBpbiBzY29wZS4NCj4NCj4gTWV0aG9kOg0KPg0KPiBJdCBpcyBl eHBlY3RlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSB3b3JrIHByb2R1Y3Qgb2YgdGhlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2lsbCBm YWxsICANCj4gaW50byB0aGUgY2F0ZWdvcnkgb2YgYmVzdCBjdXJyZW50IHByYWN0aWNlcyBkb2N1 bWVudHMuIFRheG9ub215IG9yICANCj4gcHJvYmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgZG9jdW1lbnRzIG1heSBw cm92aWRlIGEgYmFzaXMgZm9yIGJlc3QgY3VycmVudCAgDQo+IHByYWN0aWNlcyBkb2N1bWVudHMu DQo+DQo+IEJlc3QgQ3VycmVudCBQcmFjdGljZXMgRG9jdW1lbnQNCj4NCj4gRm9yIGVhY2ggdG9w aWMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLCBhIGRvY3VtZW50IHdpbGwgYmUgcHJvZHVjZWQgdGhhdCBhdHRlbXB0cyAg DQo+IHRvIGNhcHR1cmUgY3VycmVudCBwcmFjdGljZXMgcmVsYXRlZCB0byBzZWN1cmUgb3BlcmF0 aW9uLiBUaGlzIHdpbGwgIA0KPiBiZSBwcmltYXJpbHkgYmFzZWQgb24gb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgZXhw ZXJpZW5jZS4gRWFjaCBlbnRyeSB3aWxsIGxpc3Q6DQo+DQo+ICogdGhyZWF0cyBhZGRyZXNzZWQs DQo+ICogY3VycmVudCBwcmFjdGljZXMgZm9yIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgdGhlIHRocmVhdCwNCj4gKiBw cm90b2NvbHMsIHRvb2xzIGFuZCB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMgZXh0YW50IGF0IHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHdy aXRpbmcgIA0KPiB0aGF0IGFyZSB1c2VkIHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgdGhlIHRocmVhdCwNCj4gKiB0aGUg cG9zc2liaWxpdHkgdGhhdCBhIHNvbHV0aW9uIGRvZXMgbm90IGV4aXN0IHdpdGhpbiBleGlzdGlu ZyAgDQo+IHRvb2xzIG9yIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4NCj4NCj4gVGF4b25vbXkgYW5kIFByb2JsZW0g U3RhdGVtZW50IERvY3VtZW50cw0KPg0KPiBBIGRvY3VtZW50IHdoaWNoIGF0dGVtcHRzIHRvIGRl c2NyaWJlIHRoZSBzY29wZSBvZiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyICANCj4gb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgc2VjdXJpdHkg Y2hhbGxlbmdlIG9yIHByb2JsZW0gc3BhY2Ugd2l0aG91dCBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSAgDQo+IGNvbWlu ZyB0byBhIGNvbmNsdXNpb24gb3IgcHJvcG9zaW5nIGEgc29sdXRpb24uIFN1Y2ggYSBkb2N1bWVu dCAgDQo+IG1pZ2h0IGJlIGEgcHJlY3Vyc29yIHRvIGEgIGJlc3QgY29tbW9uIHByYWN0aWNlcyBk b2N1bWVudC4NCj4NCj4gV2hpbGUgdGhlIHByaW5jaXBhbCBpbnB1dCBvZiB0aGUgV29ya2luZyBH cm91cCBhcmUgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgIA0KPiBleHBlcmllbmNlIGFuZCBuZWVkcywgdGhlIG91dHB1 dCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlyZWN0ZWQgYm90aCB0byBwcm92aWRlICANCj4gZ3VpZGFuY2UgdG8gdGhl IG9wZXJhdG9ycyBjb21tdW5pdHkgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyB0byBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwcyAgDQo+IHRo YXQgZGV2ZWxvcCBwcm90b2NvbHMgb3IgdGhlIGNvbW11bml0eSBvZiBwcm90b2NvbCBkZXZlbG9w ZXJzIGF0ICANCj4gbGFyZ2UsIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgdG8gdGhlIGltcGxlbWVudGVycyBvZiB0aGVz ZSBwcm90b2NvbHMuDQo+DQo+IE5vbi1Hb2FsczoNCj4NCj4gVGhlIE9wZXJhdGlvbnMgc2VjdXJp dHkgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBpcyBub3QgdGhlIHBsYWNlIHRvIGRvIG5ldyAgDQo+IHByb3RvY29s cyBvciByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZG9jdW1lbnRzLg0KPg0KPiBOZXcgcHJvdG9jb2wgZGV2ZWxvcG1l bnQgb3IgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIHdvcmsgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFkZHJlc3NlZCBpbg0KPiBhIHdvcmtp bmcgZ3JvdXAgY2hhcnRlcmVkIGluIHRoZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBhcmVhIG9yIGFzIGluZGl2aWR1 YWwgIA0KPiBzdWJtaXNzaW9ucy4gVGhlIE9QU0VDIFdHIG1heSB0YWtlIG9uIGRvY3VtZW50cyBy ZWxhdGVkIHRvIHRoZSAgDQo+IHByYWN0aWNlcyBvZiB1c2luZyBzdWNoIHdvcmsuDQo+DQo+IEdv YWxzIGFuZCBNaWxlc3RvbmVzOg0KPg0KPiBKdWx5IDIwMDggQ29tcGxldGUgY2hhcnRlcg0KX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCk9QU0VDIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdA0KT1BTRUNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vb3BzZWMNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E276.3BEF119C Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDMuMi8vRU4iPg0KPEhUTUw+ DQo8SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBIEhUVFAtRVFVSVY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgQ09OVEVOVD0idGV4dC9o dG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxNRVRBIE5BTUU9IkdlbmVyYXRvciIgQ09OVEVOVD0iTVMg RXhjaGFuZ2UgU2VydmVyIHZlcnNpb24gNi41Ljc2NTIuMjQiPg0KPFRJVExFPlJlOiBbT1BTRUNd IHJldmlzZWQgb3BzZWMgY2hhcnRlciB3b3JraW5nLWdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbDwvVElUTEU+DQo8 L0hFQUQ+DQo8Qk9EWT4NCjwhLS0gQ29udmVydGVkIGZyb20gdGV4dC9wbGFpbiBmb3JtYXQgLS0+ DQoNCjxQPjxGT05UIFNJWkU9Mj5Mb29rcy4gR29vZC48QlI+DQo8QlI+DQpPbmx5IGNvbW1lbnQv cXVlc3Rpb24gaXMgb24gc2NvcGUuPEJSPg0KRG8geW91IGludGVuZCB0aGF0IGV2ZXkgZGV2aWNl IGltcGxlbWVudGluZzxCUj4NCklQIGJlIGluIHNjb3BlICh0aGF0J3MgaG93IEkgcmVhZCB0aGlz IGRyYWZ0KTxCUj4NCk9yIGRvIHlvdSB0aGluayBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSB1c2VmdWw8QlI+DQpUbyB0 cnkgdG8gbGltaXQgdGhlIHNjb3BlIHRvIGRldmljZXM8QlI+DQpQcm92aWRpbmcgdHJhbnNpdCAo ZWcgaXNwL25zcC9lbnRlcnByaXNlPEJSPg0KQ29yZS9lZGdlIGRldmljZXMpID8mbmJzcDs8QlI+ DQo8QlI+DQotLS1nZW9yZ2Ugam9uZXM8QlI+DQo8QlI+DQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl IC0tLS0tPEJSPg0KRnJvbTogb3BzZWMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyAmbHQ7b3BzZWMtYm91bmNl c0BpZXRmLm9yZyZndDs8QlI+DQpUbzogb3BzZWNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgJmx0O29wc2VjQGlldGYub3Jn Jmd0OzxCUj4NClNlbnQ6IFdlZCBKdWwgMDkgMjM6MjI6NDYgMjAwODxCUj4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFtP UFNFQ10gcmV2aXNlZCBvcHNlYyBjaGFydGVyIHdvcmtpbmctZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsPEJSPg0K PEJSPg0KSGkgYWxsLDxCUj4NCjxCUj4NClRoZSBjaGFydGVyIG9mIHRoZSBvcHNlYyB3b3JraW5n IGdyb3VwIHNhdyBzb21lIGFjdGl2ZSByZXZpZXcgc29tZSZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCnRpbWUgYWdvLCBh bmQgdGhlIHJlc3VsdCB3YXMgdGhlIHRleHQgaW5jbHVkZWQgYmVsb3cuPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KWW91 J2xsIG5vdGUgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGRlbGliZXJhdGVseSBpbmNsdWRlZCBhIG5lYXItZW1wdHkg c2V0IG9mJm5ic3A7PEJSPg0KbWlsZXN0b25lcy4gSXQgaXMgdGhlIG9waW5pb24gb2YgdGhlIGNo YWlycyB0aGF0IGEgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aXRoJm5ic3A7PEJSPg0KYSBjaGFydGVyIHN1Y2gg YXMgdGhpcyBpcyBieSBpdHMgdmVyeSBuYXR1cmUgb3Blbi1lbmRlZCwgYW5kIHRoYXQmbmJzcDs8 QlI+DQphc3NlbWJsaW5nIGEgZGV0YWlsZWQgc2V0IG9mIHdheXBvaW50cyBvbiBhIGpvdXJuZXkg dGhhdCBpcyBndWFyYW50ZWVkJm5ic3A7PEJSPg0KdG8gaGF2ZSBubyBmaW5hbCBkZXN0aW5hdGlv biBtYWtlcyBubyBzZW5zZS4gSXQgaXMgZW50aXJlbHkgcG9zc2libGUmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQp0aGF0 IHRoZSBJRVNHIHdpbGwgZGlzYWdyZWUsIGFuZCB0aGF0IHdlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0byByZXZpc2l0 IHRoaXM7Jm5ic3A7PEJSPg0KaG93ZXZlciwgb3VyIEFEcyBhcmUgc3VwcG9ydGl2ZSBvZiB0aGlz IGFwcHJvYWNoLjxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCkpvZWwgYW5kIEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byByZXF1ZXN0IGEg b25lIHdlZWsgd29ya2luZy1ncm91cCBsYXN0LWNhbGwgb24mbmJzcDs8QlI+DQp0aGlzIHJldmlz ZWQgY2hhcnRlciw8QlI+DQo8QlI+DQpXZSB3b3VsZCB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggbGlrZSB0byBoZWFyIGFj dGl2ZSByZXNwb25zZXMgZnJvbSBwZW9wbGUgaGVyZSZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCmFib3V0IHRoZSB0ZXh0 IGJlbG93LCB0byBjb25maXJtIHRoYXQgd2UgaGF2ZSBjb25zZW5zdXMgYW5kIG5vdCBqdXN0IGEm bmJzcDs8QlI+DQpicm9rZW4gbGlzdC4gSG93ZXZlciwgd2UgYWxzbyBlbmNvdXJhZ2UgcGVvcGxl IHRvIHJldmlldyBwcmV2aW91cyZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCmRpc2N1c3Npb25zIG9uIHRoaXMgbGlzdCB0 aHJvdWdoIGl0cyBhcmNoaXZlIHRvIGF2b2lkIHJlLWhhc2hpbmcgb2xkJm5ic3A7PEJSPg0KZGlz Y3Vzc2lvbnMgdW5uZWNlc3NhcmlseS48QlI+DQo8QlI+DQombmJzcDsmbmJzcDsgPEEgSFJFRj0i aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL29wc2VjL2N1cnJlbnQvbWFpbGxp c3QuaHRtbCI+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL29wc2VjL2N1cnJl bnQvbWFpbGxpc3QuaHRtbDwvQT48QlI+DQo8QlI+DQpUaGUgbGFzdC1jYWxsIHdpbGwgZW5kIG9u IFRodXJzZGF5IDIwMDgtMDctMTcgMDQwMCBVVEMuPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KVGhhbmtzLDxCUj4NCjxC Uj4NCjxCUj4NCkpvZSBhbmQgSm9lbDxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCiZndDsgR29hbHM6PEJSPg0KJmd0OzxC Uj4NCiZndDsgVGhlIE9QU0VDIFdHIHdpbGwgZG9jdW1lbnQgYmVzdCBjdXJyZW50IHByYWN0aWNl cyB3aXRoIHJlZ2FyZCB0byZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgbmV0d29yayBzZWN1cml0eS4gSW4gcGFy dGljdWxhciBhbiBlZmZvcnQgd2lsbCBiZSBtYWRlIHRvIGNsYXJpZnkmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7 IHRoZSByYXRpb25hbCBzdXBwb3J0aW5nIGN1cnJlbnQgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgcHJhY3RpY2UsIGFk ZHJlc3MgZ2FwcyZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgaW4gY3VycmVudGx5IHVuZGVyc3Rvb2QgYmVzdCBw cmFjdGljZXMgZm9yIGZvcndhcmRpbmcsIGNvbnRyb2wmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IHBsYW5lLCBh bmQgbWFuYWdlbWVudCBwbGFuZSBzZWN1cml0eSBhbmQgbWFrZSBjbGVhciB0aGUgbGlhYmlsaXRp ZXMmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGluaGVyZW50IGluIHNlY3VyaXR5IHByYWN0aWNlcyB3aGVyZSB0 aGV5IGV4aXN0LjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IFNjb3BlOjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7 IFRoZSBzY29wZSBvZiB0aGUgT1BTRUMgV0cgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgdG8gaW5jbHVkZSB0aGUgcHJv dGVjdGlvbiBhbmQmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IHNlY3VyZSBvcGVyYXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGZvcndh cmRpbmcsIGNvbnRyb2wgYW5kIG1hbmFnZW1lbnQgcGxhbmVzLjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7 IERvY3VtZW50YXRpb24gb2YgYmVzdCBjb21tb24gcHJhY3RpY2VzLCByZXZpc2lvbiBvZiBleGlz dGluZyZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgc2VjdXJpdHkgcHJhY3RpY2VzIGRvY3Vt ZW50cyBhbmQgcHJvcG9zYWxzIGZvciBuZXcmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgdG8g b3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgY2hhbGxlbmdlcyBhcmUgaW4gc2NvcGUuPEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsg TWV0aG9kOjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IEl0IGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHdvcmsg cHJvZHVjdCBvZiB0aGUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aWxsIGZhbGwmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGlu dG8gdGhlIGNhdGVnb3J5IG9mIGJlc3QgY3VycmVudCBwcmFjdGljZXMgZG9jdW1lbnRzLiBUYXhv bm9teSBvciZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgcHJvYmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgZG9jdW1lbnRzIG1heSBw cm92aWRlIGEgYmFzaXMgZm9yIGJlc3QgY3VycmVudCZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgcHJhY3RpY2Vz IGRvY3VtZW50cy48QlI+DQomZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyBCZXN0IEN1cnJlbnQgUHJhY3RpY2VzIERv Y3VtZW50PEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgRm9yIGVhY2ggdG9waWMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLCBhIGRv Y3VtZW50IHdpbGwgYmUgcHJvZHVjZWQgdGhhdCBhdHRlbXB0cyZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgdG8g Y2FwdHVyZSBjdXJyZW50IHByYWN0aWNlcyByZWxhdGVkIHRvIHNlY3VyZSBvcGVyYXRpb24uIFRo aXMgd2lsbCZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgYmUgcHJpbWFyaWx5IGJhc2VkIG9uIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFs IGV4cGVyaWVuY2UuIEVhY2ggZW50cnkgd2lsbCBsaXN0OjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7ICog dGhyZWF0cyBhZGRyZXNzZWQsPEJSPg0KJmd0OyAqIGN1cnJlbnQgcHJhY3RpY2VzIGZvciBhZGRy ZXNzaW5nIHRoZSB0aHJlYXQsPEJSPg0KJmd0OyAqIHByb3RvY29scywgdG9vbHMgYW5kIHRlY2hu b2xvZ2llcyBleHRhbnQgYXQgdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygd3JpdGluZyZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgdGhh dCBhcmUgdXNlZCB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSB0aHJlYXQsPEJSPg0KJmd0OyAqIHRoZSBwb3NzaWJp bGl0eSB0aGF0IGEgc29sdXRpb24gZG9lcyBub3QgZXhpc3Qgd2l0aGluIGV4aXN0aW5nJm5ic3A7 PEJSPg0KJmd0OyB0b29scyBvciB0ZWNobm9sb2dpZXMuPEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgVGF4 b25vbXkgYW5kIFByb2JsZW0gU3RhdGVtZW50IERvY3VtZW50czxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7 IEEgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2hpY2ggYXR0ZW1wdHMgdG8gZGVzY3JpYmUgdGhlIHNjb3BlIG9mIHBhcnRp Y3VsYXImbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIHNlY3VyaXR5IGNoYWxsZW5nZSBvciBw cm9ibGVtIHNwYWNlIHdpdGhvdXQgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHkmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGNvbWluZyB0 byBhIGNvbmNsdXNpb24gb3IgcHJvcG9zaW5nIGEgc29sdXRpb24uIFN1Y2ggYSBkb2N1bWVudCZu YnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgbWlnaHQgYmUgYSBwcmVjdXJzb3IgdG8gYSZuYnNwOyBiZXN0IGNvbW1v biBwcmFjdGljZXMgZG9jdW1lbnQuPEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgV2hpbGUgdGhlIHByaW5j aXBhbCBpbnB1dCBvZiB0aGUgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cCBhcmUgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwmbmJzcDs8QlI+ DQomZ3Q7IGV4cGVyaWVuY2UgYW5kIG5lZWRzLCB0aGUgb3V0cHV0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBkaXJlY3Rl ZCBib3RoIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGd1aWRhbmNlIHRvIHRoZSBvcGVyYXRv cnMgY29tbXVuaXR5IGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgdG8gV29ya2luZyBHcm91cHMmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7 IHRoYXQgZGV2ZWxvcCBwcm90b2NvbHMgb3IgdGhlIGNvbW11bml0eSBvZiBwcm90b2NvbCBkZXZl bG9wZXJzIGF0Jm5ic3A7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyBsYXJnZSwgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyB0byB0aGUgaW1wbGVt ZW50ZXJzIG9mIHRoZXNlIHByb3RvY29scy48QlI+DQomZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyBOb24tR29hbHM6 PEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgVGhlIE9wZXJhdGlvbnMgc2VjdXJpdHkgd29ya2luZyBncm91 cCBpcyBub3QgdGhlIHBsYWNlIHRvIGRvIG5ldyZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgcHJvdG9jb2xzIG9y IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBkb2N1bWVudHMuPEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgTmV3IHByb3RvY29s IGRldmVsb3BtZW50IG9yIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyB3b3JrIHNob3VsZCBiZSBhZGRyZXNzZWQgaW4m bmJzcDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGEgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBjaGFydGVyZWQgaW4gdGhlIGFwcHJvcHJp YXRlIGFyZWEgb3IgYXMgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCiZndDsgc3VibWlzc2lvbnMuIFRo ZSBPUFNFQyBXRyBtYXkgdGFrZSBvbiBkb2N1bWVudHMgcmVsYXRlZCB0byB0aGUmbmJzcDs8QlI+ DQomZ3Q7IHByYWN0aWNlcyBvZiB1c2luZyBzdWNoIHdvcmsuPEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsg R29hbHMgYW5kIE1pbGVzdG9uZXM6PEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgSnVseSAyMDA4IENvbXBs ZXRlIGNoYXJ0ZXI8QlI+DQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fXzxCUj4NCk9QU0VDIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdDxCUj4NCk9QU0VDQGlldGYub3JnPEJSPg0K PEEgSFJFRj0iaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9vcHNlYyI+aHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9vcHNlYzwvQT48QlI+DQo8L0ZPTlQ+ DQo8L1A+DQoNCjwvQk9EWT4NCjwvSFRNTD4= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E276.3BEF119C-- --===============1000894506== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec --===============1000894506==-- From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 10 05:25:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA6F28C0F9; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:25:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9C828C0F9 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:25:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sNKOtqOHRcvD for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:25:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F84628C0E6 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:25:00 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Cc:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=LeC7JKi9efQZbF+ekg7uaMZhR8LwVCS/2HY+f7dB2kB+EqaMBPJdmf5bvmjH2TZh1Nij2gBtgyC2CwJkMwlCaxMar1LWF345d64R/T/jmpdeNkXDm9Iy9fr2AC1RHiNJ; Received: from [199.212.90.30] (helo=yxu1b30.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KGvHb-000F6y-Kf; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:29:59 +0000 Message-Id: <17B6EAF8-7324-4051-A476-9548678EA40F@ca.afilias.info> From: Joe Abley To: "Jones, George" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:25:12 -0400 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org On 10 Jul 2008, at 06:18, Jones, George wrote: > Looks. Good. > > Only comment/question is on scope. > Do you intend that evey device implementing > IP be in scope (that's how I read this draft) > Or do you think it would be useful > To try to limit the scope to devices > Providing transit (eg isp/nsp/enterprise > Core/edge devices) ? > Speaking with no hat, I see no need to limit the scope to particular types of devices. If someone has work that is of sufficient quality to interest the working group such that there is consensus to adopt it as a work item, I am not convinced we do anybody any favours by turning them away on the grounds that the device in question was not considered important back when the charter was written. There's also the problem of how to characterise different kinds of device, which sounds to me like a deep rat-hole. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 10 09:32:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7683A67B6; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4870F3A68DB for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:32:26 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NoZQ348DczP7 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7093A67A3 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from OMTA09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.20]) by QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oCj21Z00B0S2fkCA6GYgHo; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:32:40 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id oGYd1Z00J4HwxpC8VGYeeC; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:32:39 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=-B0CiXkF78gA:10 a=9Fvgw8m5-BAA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=wwR-txlfx0LtkT_9z3sA:9 a=iD2zA2St3GhwzjRnqIsA:7 a=XT1OSIj3r5XyBaGSbje-E1tdFo4A:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Joe Abley'" , References: Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:32:37 -0400 Message-ID: <01b101c8e2aa$91826a20$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AcjiPEHO8uhZoUdQSy2/90YGPUuONwAU4fDw Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I don't believe much in charters with no deliverables. I think ther WG should decide there is something specific to work on and set a deadline to complete it. There was a draft BCP on logging and another on filtering. Is there a reason you do not have those listed as deliverables/milestones? They have already been started; why not plan to finish the work? Just so you know, I tried to look at the archive to see if this had been discussed. I cannot find the archives. The link from http://tools.ietf.org/wg/opsec/ doesn't work. The link in the charter munges two links together. David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com > -----Original Message----- > From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Joe Abley > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:23 PM > To: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call > > Hi all, > > The charter of the opsec working group saw some active review some > time ago, and the result was the text included below. > > You'll note that we have deliberately included a near-empty set of > milestones. It is the opinion of the chairs that a working > group with > a charter such as this is by its very nature open-ended, and that > assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is > guaranteed > to have no final destination makes no sense. It is entirely possible > that the IESG will disagree, and that we will have to revisit this; > however, our ADs are supportive of this approach. > > Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group > last-call on > this revised charter, > > We would very much like to hear active responses from people here > about the text below, to confirm that we have consensus and > not just a > broken list. However, we also encourage people to review previous > discussions on this list through its archive to avoid re-hashing old > discussions unnecessarily. > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html > > The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC. > > Thanks, > > > Joe and Joel > > > Goals: > > > > The OPSEC WG will document best current practices with regard to > > network security. In particular an effort will be made to clarify > > the rational supporting current operational practice, address gaps > > in currently understood best practices for forwarding, control > > plane, and management plane security and make clear the > liabilities > > inherent in security practices where they exist. > > > > Scope: > > > > The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the > protection and > > secure operation of the forwarding, control and management planes. > > > > Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing > > operational security practices documents and proposals for new > > approaches to operational challenges are in scope. > > > > Method: > > > > It is expected that the work product of the working group > will fall > > into the category of best current practices documents. Taxonomy or > > problem statement documents may provide a basis for best current > > practices documents. > > > > Best Current Practices Document > > > > For each topic addressed, a document will be produced that > attempts > > to capture current practices related to secure operation. > This will > > be primarily based on operational experience. Each entry will list: > > > > * threats addressed, > > * current practices for addressing the threat, > > * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing > > that are used to address the threat, > > * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing > > tools or technologies. > > > > Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents > > > > A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular > > operational security challenge or problem space without > necessarily > > coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document > > might be a precursor to a best common practices document. > > > > While the principal input of the Working Group are operational > > experience and needs, the output should be directed both to > provide > > guidance to the operators community as well as to Working Groups > > that develop protocols or the community of protocol developers at > > large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols. > > > > Non-Goals: > > > > The Operations security working group is not the place to do new > > protocols or requirements documents. > > > > New protocol development or requirements work should be > addressed in > > a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as individual > > submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related to the > > practices of using such work. > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > July 2008 Complete charter > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 10 09:33:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5F63A68DB; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7153A6993 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:36 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PjN2dg0y17yt for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAF13A685A for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.103.16.227] ([192.103.16.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6AGXQ6P079394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:33:26 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <487639C7.8070908@bogus.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:11 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jones, George" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/7685/Thu Jul 10 12:10:18 2008 on nagasaki.bogus.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Jones, George wrote: > Looks. Good. > > Only comment/question is on scope. > Do you intend that evey device implementing > IP be in scope (that's how I read this draft) > Or do you think it would be useful > To try to limit the scope to devices > Providing transit (eg isp/nsp/enterprise > Core/edge devices) ? I think that the current scope limitations substantially rules out application layer issues on end-systems from being in scope for this working group... A document like the icmp filtering document obviously has some relevance to end systems so a blanket statement that end-systems are out of scope is I think not so desirable. > ---george jones > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org > To: opsec@ietf.org > Sent: Wed Jul 09 23:22:46 2008 > Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call > > Hi all, > > The charter of the opsec working group saw some active review some > time ago, and the result was the text included below. > > You'll note that we have deliberately included a near-empty set of > milestones. It is the opinion of the chairs that a working group with > a charter such as this is by its very nature open-ended, and that > assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is guaranteed > to have no final destination makes no sense. It is entirely possible > that the IESG will disagree, and that we will have to revisit this; > however, our ADs are supportive of this approach. > > Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group last-call on > this revised charter, > > We would very much like to hear active responses from people here > about the text below, to confirm that we have consensus and not just a > broken list. However, we also encourage people to review previous > discussions on this list through its archive to avoid re-hashing old > discussions unnecessarily. > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html > > The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC. > > Thanks, > > > Joe and Joel > > > Goals: > > > > The OPSEC WG will document best current practices with regard to > > network security. In particular an effort will be made to clarify > > the rational supporting current operational practice, address gaps > > in currently understood best practices for forwarding, control > > plane, and management plane security and make clear the liabilities > > inherent in security practices where they exist. > > > > Scope: > > > > The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection and > > secure operation of the forwarding, control and management planes. > > > > Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing > > operational security practices documents and proposals for new > > approaches to operational challenges are in scope. > > > > Method: > > > > It is expected that the work product of the working group will fall > > into the category of best current practices documents. Taxonomy or > > problem statement documents may provide a basis for best current > > practices documents. > > > > Best Current Practices Document > > > > For each topic addressed, a document will be produced that attempts > > to capture current practices related to secure operation. This will > > be primarily based on operational experience. Each entry will list: > > > > * threats addressed, > > * current practices for addressing the threat, > > * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing > > that are used to address the threat, > > * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing > > tools or technologies. > > > > Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents > > > > A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular > > operational security challenge or problem space without necessarily > > coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document > > might be a precursor to a best common practices document. > > > > While the principal input of the Working Group are operational > > experience and needs, the output should be directed both to provide > > guidance to the operators community as well as to Working Groups > > that develop protocols or the community of protocol developers at > > large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols. > > > > Non-Goals: > > > > The Operations security working group is not the place to do new > > protocols or requirements documents. > > > > New protocol development or requirements work should be addressed in > > a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as individual > > submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related to the > > practices of using such work. > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > July 2008 Complete charter > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 10 11:13:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEAA3A69AA; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C380B3A692A for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:07 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84aiqsinzMcr for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from suomp64i.qwest.com (suomp64i.qwest.com [155.70.16.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959053A6819 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sudnp796.qintra.com (sudnp796.qintra.com [151.116.2.212]) by suomp64i.qwest.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m6AIDGl0001336; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:13:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ITDENE2KSM01.AD.QINTRA.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sudnp796.qintra.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m6AIDA71029427; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:13:11 -0600 (MDT) Received: from ITDENE2KM02.AD.QINTRA.COM ([10.1.4.66]) by ITDENE2KSM01.AD.QINTRA.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:13:10 -0600 X-MessageTextProcessor: DisclaimIt (2.70.270) [Qwest Communications International Inc.] X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2992 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:13:09 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <487639C7.8070908@bogus.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call thread-index: Acjiqr9Qf1l0x6J0QeyFTY2sBSWt3gADW+YA References: <487639C7.8070908@bogus.com> Importance: normal Priority: normal From: "Smith, Donald" To: "Joel Jaeggli" , "Jones, George" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 18:13:10.0999 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CA52E70:01C8E2B8] Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Security through obscurity WORKS against some worms and ssh attacks:) Donald.Smith@qwest.com giac > -----Original Message----- > From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:33 AM > To: Jones, George > Cc: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call > > Jones, George wrote: > > Looks. Good. > > > > Only comment/question is on scope. > > Do you intend that evey device implementing > > IP be in scope (that's how I read this draft) > > Or do you think it would be useful > > To try to limit the scope to devices > > Providing transit (eg isp/nsp/enterprise > > Core/edge devices) ? > > I think that the current scope limitations substantially rules out > application layer issues on end-systems from being in scope for this > working group... > > A document like the icmp filtering document obviously has > some relevance > to end systems so a blanket statement that end-systems are > out of scope > is I think not so desirable. Routers or network elements as end-systems should certainly be included. So a router with any service enabled (ssh, telnet, ntp, etc...) acts as an end-system in my mind. > > > ---george jones > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org > > To: opsec@ietf.org > > Sent: Wed Jul 09 23:22:46 2008 > > Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call > > > > Hi all, > > > > The charter of the opsec working group saw some active review some > > time ago, and the result was the text included below. > > > > You'll note that we have deliberately included a near-empty set of > > milestones. It is the opinion of the chairs that a working > group with > > a charter such as this is by its very nature open-ended, and that > > assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is > guaranteed > > to have no final destination makes no sense. It is entirely > possible > > that the IESG will disagree, and that we will have to revisit this; > > however, our ADs are supportive of this approach. > > > > Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group > last-call on > > this revised charter, > > > > We would very much like to hear active responses from people here > > about the text below, to confirm that we have consensus and > not just a > > broken list. However, we also encourage people to review previous > > discussions on this list through its archive to avoid > re-hashing old > > discussions unnecessarily. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html > > > > The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Joe and Joel > > > > > Goals: > > > > > > The OPSEC WG will document best current practices with regard to > > > network security. In particular an effort will be made > to clarify > > > the rational supporting current operational practice, > address gaps > > > in currently understood best practices for forwarding, control > > > plane, and management plane security and make clear the > liabilities > > > inherent in security practices where they exist. > > > > > > Scope: > > > > > > The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the > protection and > > > secure operation of the forwarding, control and > management planes. > > > > > > Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing > > > operational security practices documents and proposals for new > > > approaches to operational challenges are in scope. > > > > > > Method: > > > > > > It is expected that the work product of the working > group will fall > > > into the category of best current practices documents. > Taxonomy or > > > problem statement documents may provide a basis for best current > > > practices documents. > > > > > > Best Current Practices Document > > > > > > For each topic addressed, a document will be produced > that attempts > > > to capture current practices related to secure > operation. This will > > > be primarily based on operational experience. Each entry > will list: > > > > > > * threats addressed, > > > * current practices for addressing the threat, > > > * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time > of writing > > > that are used to address the threat, > > > * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing > > > tools or technologies. > > > > > > Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents > > > > > > A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular > > > operational security challenge or problem space without > necessarily > > > coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document > > > might be a precursor to a best common practices document. > > > > > > While the principal input of the Working Group are operational > > > experience and needs, the output should be directed both > to provide > > > guidance to the operators community as well as to Working Groups > > > that develop protocols or the community of protocol > developers at > > > large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols. > > > > > > Non-Goals: > > > > > > The Operations security working group is not the place to do new > > > protocols or requirements documents. > > > > > > New protocol development or requirements work should be > addressed in > > > a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as > individual > > > submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related to the > > > practices of using such work. > > > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > > > July 2008 Complete charter > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSEC mailing list > > OPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSEC mailing list > > OPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 10 12:28:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65583A6993; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1622F28C130 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.56 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xnglXMgdnzDv for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEB73A6993 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:27:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Cc:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=aONj6Nf0o2R6CFwLTf2IVqVhzrAp0vuRChfjm9XR1vrR7o3Q263hOkFDwpJvJYNOarPqEDw/qmoW4rNeZjoFII6fNwFvE7r58PjwKFjzSF3ikqGAzDubGZQxCI97jwFO; Received: from [199.212.90.30] (helo=yxu1b30.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KH1sw-000JuT-EN; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:32:58 +0000 Message-Id: From: Joe Abley To: David Harrington In-Reply-To: <01b101c8e2aa$91826a20$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:28:11 -0400 References: <01b101c8e2aa$91826a20$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org On 10 Jul 2008, at 12:32, David Harrington wrote: > There was a draft BCP on logging and another on filtering. Is there a > reason you do not have those listed as deliverables/milestones? They > have already been started; why not plan to finish the work? It is not clear to me that there is enthusiasm to complete existing documents, in all cases. Ensuring that there is available energy in the author and reviewer roles for documents to proceed in a timely fashion seems prudent before they are memorialised in the charter. That would seem to imply either proceeding with a charter which lists minimal deliverables (as posted), or delaying introduction of a new charter until the status and ambitions of all work items can be established. The latter approach seems to risk conflict between chickens and eggs. I am certainly not arguing against the idea of laying out our project plan on a rolling basis for the next three or four meetings. However, it seems to me that we ought to be able to agree on the meat of the charter first as a basis for building that plan. > Just so you know, I tried to look at the archive to see if this had > been discussed. I cannot find the archives. The link from > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/opsec/ doesn't work. The link in the charter > munges two links together. A small amount of cut-and-paste might be needed, or you could just use the link I included in the e-mail you quoted: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html Joe _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 11 06:21:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4B83A6ABC; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:21:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBA13A6AD6 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:21:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ik6WEduDIdKw for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (smtp-bedford.mitre.org [129.83.20.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D013A6ABC for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6BDLrRN015135 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:21:54 -0400 Received: from imcfe2.MITRE.ORG (imcfe2.mitre.org [129.83.29.4]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6BDLrcp015125; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:21:53 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV4.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.161]) by imcfe2.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:21:53 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:21:46 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call Thread-Index: AcjiwzSRfJVvmyxsQmyTOGh+MIqpGgAldy6Z From: "Jones, George" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2008 13:21:53.0114 (UTC) FILETIME=[156D53A0:01C8E359] Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0231211143==" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0231211143== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8E359.11924B18" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E359.11924B18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIGpvZSdzIHJlYXNvbmluZyBhYm91dCBrZWVwaW5nDQpUaGUgZGVsaXZlcmFi bGVzIHRvIGEgbWluaW11bSBvZiBpdGVtcw0KTGlrZWx5IHRvIGJlIGNvbXBsZXRlZA0KDQpPbiB0 aGUgbG9nZ2luZyBpdGVtLCBJIHRyaWVkIGZvciBhIGNvdXBsZQ0KWWVhcnMgdG8gZW5nYWdlICJ0 aGUgcmlnaHQgcGVvcGxlIiwNCkhhZCBhIGNvdXBsZSBmYWxzZSBzdGFydHMgYnV0IG5vDQpEcmFm dHMuDQoNClRoZSBvbGRlciBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgYXJjaGl2ZXMgYXJlIGF0DQpPcHMuaWV0Zi5v cmcgcGVyaGFwcyB0aGUgd2cgcGFnZQ0KU2hvdWxkIGNvbnRhaW4gYSBsaW5rIHRvIHRoYXQNCg0K LS0tZ2VvcmdlIGpvbmVzDQoNCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IG9w c2VjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgPG9wc2VjLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpUbzogRGF2aWQg SGFycmluZ3RvbiA8aWV0ZmRiaEBjb21jYXN0Lm5ldD4NCkNjOiBvcHNlY0BpZXRmLm9yZyA8b3Bz ZWNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTZW50OiBUaHUgSnVsIDEwIDE1OjI4OjExIDIwMDgNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJl OiBbT1BTRUNdIHJldmlzZWQgb3BzZWMgY2hhcnRlciB3b3JraW5nLWdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbA0K DQoNCk9uIDEwIEp1bCAyMDA4LCBhdCAxMjozMiwgRGF2aWQgSGFycmluZ3RvbiB3cm90ZToNCg0K PiBUaGVyZSB3YXMgYSBkcmFmdCBCQ1Agb24gbG9nZ2luZyBhbmQgYW5vdGhlciBvbiBmaWx0ZXJp bmcuIElzIHRoZXJlIGENCj4gcmVhc29uIHlvdSBkbyBub3QgaGF2ZSB0aG9zZSBsaXN0ZWQgYXMg ZGVsaXZlcmFibGVzL21pbGVzdG9uZXM/IFRoZXkNCj4gaGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGJlZW4gc3RhcnRl ZDsgd2h5IG5vdCBwbGFuIHRvIGZpbmlzaCB0aGUgd29yaz8NCg0KSXQgaXMgbm90IGNsZWFyIHRv IG1lIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgZW50aHVzaWFzbSB0byBjb21wbGV0ZSBleGlzdGluZyAgDQpkb2N1 bWVudHMsIGluIGFsbCBjYXNlcy4gRW5zdXJpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgZW5l cmd5IGluICANCnRoZSBhdXRob3IgYW5kIHJldmlld2VyIHJvbGVzIGZvciBkb2N1bWVudHMgdG8g cHJvY2VlZCBpbiBhIHRpbWVseSAgDQpmYXNoaW9uIHNlZW1zIHBydWRlbnQgYmVmb3JlIHRoZXkg YXJlIG1lbW9yaWFsaXNlZCBpbiB0aGUgY2hhcnRlci4gIA0KVGhhdCB3b3VsZCBzZWVtIHRvIGlt cGx5IGVpdGhlciBwcm9jZWVkaW5nIHdpdGggYSBjaGFydGVyIHdoaWNoIGxpc3RzICANCm1pbmlt YWwgZGVsaXZlcmFibGVzIChhcyBwb3N0ZWQpLCBvciBkZWxheWluZyBpbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gb2Yg YSBuZXcgIA0KY2hhcnRlciB1bnRpbCB0aGUgc3RhdHVzIGFuZCBhbWJpdGlvbnMgb2YgYWxsIHdv cmsgaXRlbXMgY2FuIGJlICANCmVzdGFibGlzaGVkLiBUaGUgbGF0dGVyIGFwcHJvYWNoIHNlZW1z IHRvIHJpc2sgY29uZmxpY3QgYmV0d2VlbiAgDQpjaGlja2VucyBhbmQgZWdncy4NCg0KSSBhbSBj ZXJ0YWlubHkgbm90IGFyZ3VpbmcgYWdhaW5zdCB0aGUgaWRlYSBvZiBsYXlpbmcgb3V0IG91ciBw cm9qZWN0ICANCnBsYW4gb24gYSByb2xsaW5nIGJhc2lzIGZvciB0aGUgbmV4dCB0aHJlZSBvciBm b3VyIG1lZXRpbmdzLiBIb3dldmVyLCAgDQppdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSB0aGF0IHdlIG91Z2h0IHRv IGJlIGFibGUgdG8gYWdyZWUgb24gdGhlIG1lYXQgb2YgdGhlICANCmNoYXJ0ZXIgZmlyc3QgYXMg YSBiYXNpcyBmb3IgYnVpbGRpbmcgdGhhdCBwbGFuLg0KDQo+IEp1c3Qgc28geW91IGtub3csIEkg dHJpZWQgdG8gbG9vayBhdCB0aGUgYXJjaGl2ZSB0byBzZWUgaWYgdGhpcyBoYWQNCj4gYmVlbiBk aXNjdXNzZWQuIEkgY2Fubm90IGZpbmQgdGhlIGFyY2hpdmVzLiBUaGUgbGluayBmcm9tDQo+IGh0 dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9vcHNlYy8gZG9lc24ndCB3b3JrLiBUaGUgbGluayBpbiB0 aGUgY2hhcnRlcg0KPiBtdW5nZXMgdHdvIGxpbmtzIHRvZ2V0aGVyLg0KDQpBIHNtYWxsIGFtb3Vu dCBvZiBjdXQtYW5kLXBhc3RlIG1pZ2h0IGJlIG5lZWRlZCwgb3IgeW91IGNvdWxkIGp1c3QgdXNl DQp0aGUgbGluayBJIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBlLW1haWwgeW91IHF1b3RlZDoNCg0KPj4gICBo dHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWwtYXJjaGl2ZS93ZWIvb3BzZWMvY3VycmVudC9tYWlsbGlz dC5odG1sDQoNCg0KSm9lDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fDQpPUFNFQyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCk9QU0VDQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3 dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29wc2VjDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E359.11924B18 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDMuMi8vRU4iPg0KPEhUTUw+ DQo8SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBIEhUVFAtRVFVSVY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgQ09OVEVOVD0idGV4dC9o dG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxNRVRBIE5BTUU9IkdlbmVyYXRvciIgQ09OVEVOVD0iTVMg RXhjaGFuZ2UgU2VydmVyIHZlcnNpb24gNi41Ljc2NTIuMjQiPg0KPFRJVExFPlJlOiBbT1BTRUNd IHJldmlzZWQgb3BzZWMgY2hhcnRlciB3b3JraW5nLWdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbDwvVElUTEU+DQo8 L0hFQUQ+DQo8Qk9EWT4NCjwhLS0gQ29udmVydGVkIGZyb20gdGV4dC9wbGFpbiBmb3JtYXQgLS0+ DQoNCjxQPjxGT05UIFNJWkU9Mj5JIGFncmVlIHdpdGggam9lJ3MgcmVhc29uaW5nIGFib3V0IGtl ZXBpbmc8QlI+DQpUaGUgZGVsaXZlcmFibGVzIHRvIGEgbWluaW11bSBvZiBpdGVtczxCUj4NCkxp a2VseSB0byBiZSBjb21wbGV0ZWQ8QlI+DQo8QlI+DQpPbiB0aGUgbG9nZ2luZyBpdGVtLCBJIHRy aWVkIGZvciBhIGNvdXBsZTxCUj4NClllYXJzIHRvIGVuZ2FnZSAmcXVvdDt0aGUgcmlnaHQgcGVv cGxlJnF1b3Q7LDxCUj4NCkhhZCBhIGNvdXBsZSBmYWxzZSBzdGFydHMgYnV0IG5vPEJSPg0KRHJh ZnRzLjxCUj4NCjxCUj4NClRoZSBvbGRlciBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgYXJjaGl2ZXMgYXJlIGF0PEJS Pg0KT3BzLmlldGYub3JnIHBlcmhhcHMgdGhlIHdnIHBhZ2U8QlI+DQpTaG91bGQgY29udGFpbiBh IGxpbmsgdG8gdGhhdDxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCi0tLWdlb3JnZSBqb25lczxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCi0tLS0t IE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS08QlI+DQpGcm9tOiBvcHNlYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3Jn ICZsdDtvcHNlYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnJmd0OzxCUj4NClRvOiBEYXZpZCBIYXJyaW5ndG9u ICZsdDtpZXRmZGJoQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0Jmd0OzxCUj4NCkNjOiBvcHNlY0BpZXRmLm9yZyAmbHQ7 b3BzZWNAaWV0Zi5vcmcmZ3Q7PEJSPg0KU2VudDogVGh1IEp1bCAxMCAxNToyODoxMSAyMDA4PEJS Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtPUFNFQ10gcmV2aXNlZCBvcHNlYyBjaGFydGVyIHdvcmtpbmctZ3Jv dXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KT24gMTAgSnVsIDIwMDgsIGF0IDEyOjMyLCBE YXZpZCBIYXJyaW5ndG9uIHdyb3RlOjxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCiZndDsgVGhlcmUgd2FzIGEgZHJhZnQg QkNQIG9uIGxvZ2dpbmcgYW5kIGFub3RoZXIgb24gZmlsdGVyaW5nLiBJcyB0aGVyZSBhPEJSPg0K Jmd0OyByZWFzb24geW91IGRvIG5vdCBoYXZlIHRob3NlIGxpc3RlZCBhcyBkZWxpdmVyYWJsZXMv bWlsZXN0b25lcz8gVGhleTxCUj4NCiZndDsgaGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGJlZW4gc3RhcnRlZDsgd2h5 IG5vdCBwbGFuIHRvIGZpbmlzaCB0aGUgd29yaz88QlI+DQo8QlI+DQpJdCBpcyBub3QgY2xlYXIg dG8gbWUgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBlbnRodXNpYXNtIHRvIGNvbXBsZXRlIGV4aXN0aW5nJm5ic3A7 PEJSPg0KZG9jdW1lbnRzLCBpbiBhbGwgY2FzZXMuIEVuc3VyaW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgYXZh aWxhYmxlIGVuZXJneSBpbiZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCnRoZSBhdXRob3IgYW5kIHJldmlld2VyIHJvbGVz IGZvciBkb2N1bWVudHMgdG8gcHJvY2VlZCBpbiBhIHRpbWVseSZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCmZhc2hpb24g c2VlbXMgcHJ1ZGVudCBiZWZvcmUgdGhleSBhcmUgbWVtb3JpYWxpc2VkIGluIHRoZSBjaGFydGVy LiZuYnNwOzxCUj4NClRoYXQgd291bGQgc2VlbSB0byBpbXBseSBlaXRoZXIgcHJvY2VlZGluZyB3 aXRoIGEgY2hhcnRlciB3aGljaCBsaXN0cyZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCm1pbmltYWwgZGVsaXZlcmFibGVz IChhcyBwb3N0ZWQpLCBvciBkZWxheWluZyBpbnRyb2R1Y3Rpb24gb2YgYSBuZXcmbmJzcDs8QlI+ DQpjaGFydGVyIHVudGlsIHRoZSBzdGF0dXMgYW5kIGFtYml0aW9ucyBvZiBhbGwgd29yayBpdGVt cyBjYW4gYmUmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQplc3RhYmxpc2hlZC4gVGhlIGxhdHRlciBhcHByb2FjaCBzZWVt cyB0byByaXNrIGNvbmZsaWN0IGJldHdlZW4mbmJzcDs8QlI+DQpjaGlja2VucyBhbmQgZWdncy48 QlI+DQo8QlI+DQpJIGFtIGNlcnRhaW5seSBub3QgYXJndWluZyBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoZSBpZGVhIG9m IGxheWluZyBvdXQgb3VyIHByb2plY3QmbmJzcDs8QlI+DQpwbGFuIG9uIGEgcm9sbGluZyBiYXNp cyBmb3IgdGhlIG5leHQgdGhyZWUgb3IgZm91ciBtZWV0aW5ncy4gSG93ZXZlciwmbmJzcDs8QlI+ DQppdCBzZWVtcyB0byBtZSB0aGF0IHdlIG91Z2h0IHRvIGJlIGFibGUgdG8gYWdyZWUgb24gdGhl IG1lYXQgb2YgdGhlJm5ic3A7PEJSPg0KY2hhcnRlciBmaXJzdCBhcyBhIGJhc2lzIGZvciBidWls ZGluZyB0aGF0IHBsYW4uPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KJmd0OyBKdXN0IHNvIHlvdSBrbm93LCBJIHRyaWVk IHRvIGxvb2sgYXQgdGhlIGFyY2hpdmUgdG8gc2VlIGlmIHRoaXMgaGFkPEJSPg0KJmd0OyBiZWVu IGRpc2N1c3NlZC4gSSBjYW5ub3QgZmluZCB0aGUgYXJjaGl2ZXMuIFRoZSBsaW5rIGZyb208QlI+ DQomZ3Q7IDxBIEhSRUY9Imh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9vcHNlYy8iPmh0dHA6Ly90 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy93Zy9vcHNlYy88L0E+IGRvZXNuJ3Qgd29yay4gVGhlIGxpbmsgaW4gdGhl IGNoYXJ0ZXI8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IG11bmdlcyB0d28gbGlua3MgdG9nZXRoZXIuPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0K QSBzbWFsbCBhbW91bnQgb2YgY3V0LWFuZC1wYXN0ZSBtaWdodCBiZSBuZWVkZWQsIG9yIHlvdSBj b3VsZCBqdXN0IHVzZSZuYnNwOzxCUj4NCnRoZSBsaW5rIEkgaW5jbHVkZWQgaW4gdGhlIGUtbWFp bCB5b3UgcXVvdGVkOjxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCiZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IDxBIEhSRUY9Imh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9vcHNlYy9jdXJyZW50L21haWxsaXN0 Lmh0bWwiPmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9vcHNlYy9jdXJyZW50 L21haWxsaXN0Lmh0bWw8L0E+PEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KSm9lPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188QlI+DQpPUFNFQyBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3Q8QlI+DQpPUFNFQ0BpZXRmLm9yZzxCUj4NCjxBIEhSRUY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vb3BzZWMiPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxt YW4vbGlzdGluZm8vb3BzZWM8L0E+PEJSPg0KPC9GT05UPg0KPC9QPg0KDQo8L0JPRFk+DQo8L0hU TUw+ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E359.11924B18-- --===============0231211143== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec --===============0231211143==-- From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 11 06:29:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA4628C0F7; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:29:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC8928C0F7 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:29:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0V5aV9Uz6K9 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (smtp-bedford.mitre.org [129.83.20.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EED28C0E1 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6BDTwXj004443 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:29:59 -0400 Received: from imcfe2.MITRE.ORG (imcfe2.mitre.org [129.83.29.4]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6BDTwiC004423; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:29:58 -0400 Received: from IMCSRV4.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.161]) by imcfe2.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:29:58 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:29:01 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call Thread-Index: Acjiqr4dmg7OvIH5RceXuj8bf0Mz6gAr1Zlk From: "Jones, George" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2008 13:29:58.0180 (UTC) FILETIME=[368C8640:01C8E35A] Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0305441191==" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0305441191== Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8E35A.1497B164" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E35A.1497B164 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 T2sNCg0KSnVzdCBhcyBsb25nIGFzIHlvdXIgbWFraW5nIGEgY29uc2Npb3VzDQpEZWNpc2lvbiB0 byBiZSB0aGF0IGJyb2FzIGluIHNjb3BlLg0KDQpXaXRoIGVhcmxpZXIgd29yayBJIGZvdW5kIGl0 IHVzZWZ1bCANClRvIHRpZ2h0bHkgbGltaXQgc2NvcGUgYXMgYW4gYWlkIHRvDQpLZWVwaW5nIGRv Y3VtZW50cyBmcm9tIGV4cGFuZGluZw0KSW5maW5pdGx5IGV2ZXJ5IHRpbWUgc29tZW9uZSANCkJy b3VnaHQgdXAgc29tZXRoaW5nIG5ldw0KDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tDQpG cm9tOiBKb2VsIEphZWdnbGkgPGpvZWxqYUBib2d1cy5jb20+DQpUbzogSm9uZXMsIEdlb3JnZQ0K Q2M6IGphYmxleUBjYS5hZmlsaWFzLmluZm8gPGphYmxleUBjYS5hZmlsaWFzLmluZm8+OyBvcHNl Y0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPG9wc2VjQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU2VudDogVGh1IEp1bCAxMCAxMjozMzoxMSAy MDA4DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW09QU0VDXSByZXZpc2VkIG9wc2VjIGNoYXJ0ZXIgd29ya2luZy1n cm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGwNCg0KSm9uZXMsIEdlb3JnZSB3cm90ZToNCj4gTG9va3MuIEdvb2QuDQo+ IA0KPiBPbmx5IGNvbW1lbnQvcXVlc3Rpb24gaXMgb24gc2NvcGUuDQo+IERvIHlvdSBpbnRlbmQg dGhhdCBldmV5IGRldmljZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRpbmcNCj4gSVAgYmUgaW4gc2NvcGUgKHRoYXQncyBo b3cgSSByZWFkIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQpDQo+IE9yIGRvIHlvdSB0aGluayBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSB1c2Vm dWwNCj4gVG8gdHJ5IHRvIGxpbWl0IHRoZSBzY29wZSB0byBkZXZpY2VzDQo+IFByb3ZpZGluZyB0 cmFuc2l0IChlZyBpc3AvbnNwL2VudGVycHJpc2UNCj4gQ29yZS9lZGdlIGRldmljZXMpID8gDQoN CkkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBzY29wZSBsaW1pdGF0aW9ucyBzdWJzdGFudGlhbGx5 IHJ1bGVzIG91dCANCmFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIGxheWVyIGlzc3VlcyBvbiBlbmQtc3lzdGVtcyBmcm9t IGJlaW5nIGluIHNjb3BlIGZvciB0aGlzIA0Kd29ya2luZyBncm91cC4uLg0KDQpBIGRvY3VtZW50 IGxpa2UgdGhlIGljbXAgZmlsdGVyaW5nIGRvY3VtZW50IG9idmlvdXNseSBoYXMgc29tZQ0KcmVs ZXZhbmNlIA0KdG8gZW5kIHN5c3RlbXMgc28gYSBibGFua2V0IHN0YXRlbWVudCB0aGF0IGVuZC1z eXN0ZW1zIGFyZSBvdXQgb2Ygc2NvcGUNCmlzIEkgdGhpbmsgbm90IHNvIGRlc2lyYWJsZS4NCg0K PiAtLS1nZW9yZ2Ugam9uZXMNCj4gDQo+IC0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCj4g RnJvbTogb3BzZWMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyA8b3BzZWMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NCj4g VG86IG9wc2VjQGlldGYub3JnIDxvcHNlY0BpZXRmLm9yZz4NCj4gU2VudDogV2VkIEp1bCAwOSAy MzoyMjo0NiAyMDA4DQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFtPUFNFQ10gcmV2aXNlZCBvcHNlYyBjaGFydGVyIHdv cmtpbmctZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsDQo+IA0KPiBIaSBhbGwsDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgY2hhcnRlciBv ZiB0aGUgb3BzZWMgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBzYXcgc29tZSBhY3RpdmUgcmV2aWV3IHNvbWUgDQo+ IHRpbWUgYWdvLCBhbmQgdGhlIHJlc3VsdCB3YXMgdGhlIHRleHQgaW5jbHVkZWQgYmVsb3cuDQo+ IA0KPiBZb3UnbGwgbm90ZSB0aGF0IHdlIGhhdmUgZGVsaWJlcmF0ZWx5IGluY2x1ZGVkIGEgbmVh ci1lbXB0eSBzZXQgb2YgDQo+IG1pbGVzdG9uZXMuIEl0IGlzIHRoZSBvcGluaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBj aGFpcnMgdGhhdCBhIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2l0aA0KPiBhIGNoYXJ0ZXIgc3VjaCBhcyB0aGlz IGlzIGJ5IGl0cyB2ZXJ5IG5hdHVyZSBvcGVuLWVuZGVkLCBhbmQgdGhhdCANCj4gYXNzZW1ibGlu ZyBhIGRldGFpbGVkIHNldCBvZiB3YXlwb2ludHMgb24gYSBqb3VybmV5IHRoYXQgaXMNCmd1YXJh bnRlZWQgDQo+IHRvIGhhdmUgbm8gZmluYWwgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gbWFrZXMgbm8gc2Vuc2UuIEl0 IGlzIGVudGlyZWx5IHBvc3NpYmxlIA0KPiB0aGF0IHRoZSBJRVNHIHdpbGwgZGlzYWdyZWUsIGFu ZCB0aGF0IHdlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0byByZXZpc2l0IHRoaXM7IA0KPiBob3dldmVyLCBvdXIgQURz IGFyZSBzdXBwb3J0aXZlIG9mIHRoaXMgYXBwcm9hY2guDQo+IA0KPiBKb2VsIGFuZCBJIHdvdWxk IGxpa2UgdG8gcmVxdWVzdCBhIG9uZSB3ZWVrIHdvcmtpbmctZ3JvdXAgbGFzdC1jYWxsDQpvbiAN Cj4gdGhpcyByZXZpc2VkIGNoYXJ0ZXIsDQo+IA0KPiBXZSB3b3VsZCB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggbGlrZSB0 byBoZWFyIGFjdGl2ZSByZXNwb25zZXMgZnJvbSBwZW9wbGUgaGVyZSANCj4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIHRl eHQgYmVsb3csIHRvIGNvbmZpcm0gdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBhbmQgbm90IGp1c3QN CmEgDQo+IGJyb2tlbiBsaXN0LiBIb3dldmVyLCB3ZSBhbHNvIGVuY291cmFnZSBwZW9wbGUgdG8g cmV2aWV3IHByZXZpb3VzIA0KPiBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBvbiB0aGlzIGxpc3QgdGhyb3VnaCBpdHMg YXJjaGl2ZSB0byBhdm9pZCByZS1oYXNoaW5nIG9sZCANCj4gZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgdW5uZWNlc3Nh cmlseS4NCj4gDQo+ICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9vcHNl Yy9jdXJyZW50L21haWxsaXN0Lmh0bWwNCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBsYXN0LWNhbGwgd2lsbCBlbmQgb24g VGh1cnNkYXkgMjAwOC0wNy0xNyAwNDAwIFVUQy4NCj4gDQo+IFRoYW5rcywNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBK b2UgYW5kIEpvZWwNCj4gDQo+ICA+IEdvYWxzOg0KPiAgPg0KPiAgPiBUaGUgT1BTRUMgV0cgd2ls bCBkb2N1bWVudCBiZXN0IGN1cnJlbnQgcHJhY3RpY2VzIHdpdGggcmVnYXJkIHRvIA0KPiAgPiBu ZXR3b3JrIHNlY3VyaXR5LiBJbiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIGFuIGVmZm9ydCB3aWxsIGJlIG1hZGUgdG8g Y2xhcmlmeSANCj4gID4gdGhlIHJhdGlvbmFsIHN1cHBvcnRpbmcgY3VycmVudCBvcGVyYXRpb25h bCBwcmFjdGljZSwgYWRkcmVzcyBnYXBzDQo+ICA+IGluIGN1cnJlbnRseSB1bmRlcnN0b29kIGJl c3QgcHJhY3RpY2VzIGZvciBmb3J3YXJkaW5nLCBjb250cm9sIA0KPiAgPiBwbGFuZSwgYW5kIG1h bmFnZW1lbnQgcGxhbmUgc2VjdXJpdHkgYW5kIG1ha2UgY2xlYXIgdGhlDQpsaWFiaWxpdGllcyAN Cj4gID4gaW5oZXJlbnQgaW4gc2VjdXJpdHkgcHJhY3RpY2VzIHdoZXJlIHRoZXkgZXhpc3QuDQo+ ICA+DQo+ICA+IFNjb3BlOg0KPiAgPg0KPiAgPiBUaGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgdGhlIE9QU0VDIFdHIGlz IGludGVuZGVkIHRvIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhlIHByb3RlY3Rpb24NCmFuZCANCj4gID4gc2VjdXJlIG9w ZXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZm9yd2FyZGluZywgY29udHJvbCBhbmQgbWFuYWdlbWVudCBwbGFuZXMu DQo+ICA+DQo+ICA+IERvY3VtZW50YXRpb24gb2YgYmVzdCBjb21tb24gcHJhY3RpY2VzLCByZXZp c2lvbiBvZiBleGlzdGluZyANCj4gID4gb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgc2VjdXJpdHkgcHJhY3RpY2VzIGRv Y3VtZW50cyBhbmQgcHJvcG9zYWxzIGZvciBuZXcgDQo+ICA+IGFwcHJvYWNoZXMgdG8gb3BlcmF0 aW9uYWwgY2hhbGxlbmdlcyBhcmUgaW4gc2NvcGUuDQo+ICA+DQo+ICA+IE1ldGhvZDoNCj4gID4N Cj4gID4gSXQgaXMgZXhwZWN0ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgd29yayBwcm9kdWN0IG9mIHRoZSB3b3JraW5n IGdyb3VwIHdpbGwNCmZhbGwgDQo+ICA+IGludG8gdGhlIGNhdGVnb3J5IG9mIGJlc3QgY3VycmVu dCBwcmFjdGljZXMgZG9jdW1lbnRzLiBUYXhvbm9teSBvcg0KPiAgPiBwcm9ibGVtIHN0YXRlbWVu dCBkb2N1bWVudHMgbWF5IHByb3ZpZGUgYSBiYXNpcyBmb3IgYmVzdCBjdXJyZW50IA0KPiAgPiBw cmFjdGljZXMgZG9jdW1lbnRzLg0KPiAgPg0KPiAgPiBCZXN0IEN1cnJlbnQgUHJhY3RpY2VzIERv Y3VtZW50DQo+ICA+DQo+ICA+IEZvciBlYWNoIHRvcGljIGFkZHJlc3NlZCwgYSBkb2N1bWVudCB3 aWxsIGJlIHByb2R1Y2VkIHRoYXQNCmF0dGVtcHRzIA0KPiAgPiB0byBjYXB0dXJlIGN1cnJlbnQg cHJhY3RpY2VzIHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gc2VjdXJlIG9wZXJhdGlvbi4gVGhpcw0Kd2lsbCANCj4gID4g YmUgcHJpbWFyaWx5IGJhc2VkIG9uIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIGV4cGVyaWVuY2UuIEVhY2ggZW50cnkg d2lsbA0KbGlzdDoNCj4gID4NCj4gID4gKiB0aHJlYXRzIGFkZHJlc3NlZCwNCj4gID4gKiBjdXJy ZW50IHByYWN0aWNlcyBmb3IgYWRkcmVzc2luZyB0aGUgdGhyZWF0LA0KPiAgPiAqIHByb3RvY29s cywgdG9vbHMgYW5kIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyBleHRhbnQgYXQgdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygd3JpdGluZyAN Cj4gID4gdGhhdCBhcmUgdXNlZCB0byBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSB0aHJlYXQsDQo+ICA+ICogdGhlIHBv c3NpYmlsaXR5IHRoYXQgYSBzb2x1dGlvbiBkb2VzIG5vdCBleGlzdCB3aXRoaW4gZXhpc3Rpbmcg DQo+ICA+IHRvb2xzIG9yIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy4NCj4gID4NCj4gID4gVGF4b25vbXkgYW5kIFBy b2JsZW0gU3RhdGVtZW50IERvY3VtZW50cw0KPiAgPg0KPiAgPiBBIGRvY3VtZW50IHdoaWNoIGF0 dGVtcHRzIHRvIGRlc2NyaWJlIHRoZSBzY29wZSBvZiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIA0KPiAgPiBvcGVyYXRp b25hbCBzZWN1cml0eSBjaGFsbGVuZ2Ugb3IgcHJvYmxlbSBzcGFjZSB3aXRob3V0DQpuZWNlc3Nh cmlseSANCj4gID4gY29taW5nIHRvIGEgY29uY2x1c2lvbiBvciBwcm9wb3NpbmcgYSBzb2x1dGlv bi4gU3VjaCBhIGRvY3VtZW50IA0KPiAgPiBtaWdodCBiZSBhIHByZWN1cnNvciB0byBhICBiZXN0 IGNvbW1vbiBwcmFjdGljZXMgZG9jdW1lbnQuDQo+ICA+DQo+ICA+IFdoaWxlIHRoZSBwcmluY2lw YWwgaW5wdXQgb2YgdGhlIFdvcmtpbmcgR3JvdXAgYXJlIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIA0KPiAgPiBleHBl cmllbmNlIGFuZCBuZWVkcywgdGhlIG91dHB1dCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlyZWN0ZWQgYm90aCB0bw0K cHJvdmlkZSANCj4gID4gZ3VpZGFuY2UgdG8gdGhlIG9wZXJhdG9ycyBjb21tdW5pdHkgYXMgd2Vs bCBhcyB0byBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwcyANCj4gID4gdGhhdCBkZXZlbG9wIHByb3RvY29scyBvciB0 aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5IG9mIHByb3RvY29sIGRldmVsb3BlcnMgYXQgDQo+ICA+IGxhcmdlLCBhcyB3 ZWxsIGFzIHRvIHRoZSBpbXBsZW1lbnRlcnMgb2YgdGhlc2UgcHJvdG9jb2xzLg0KPiAgPg0KPiAg PiBOb24tR29hbHM6DQo+ICA+DQo+ICA+IFRoZSBPcGVyYXRpb25zIHNlY3VyaXR5IHdvcmtpbmcg Z3JvdXAgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBwbGFjZSB0byBkbyBuZXcgDQo+ICA+IHByb3RvY29scyBvciByZXF1 aXJlbWVudHMgZG9jdW1lbnRzLg0KPiAgPg0KPiAgPiBOZXcgcHJvdG9jb2wgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQg b3IgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIHdvcmsgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFkZHJlc3NlZA0KaW4gDQo+ICA+IGEgd29y a2luZyBncm91cCBjaGFydGVyZWQgaW4gdGhlIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIGFyZWEgb3IgYXMgaW5kaXZp ZHVhbA0KPiAgPiBzdWJtaXNzaW9ucy4gVGhlIE9QU0VDIFdHIG1heSB0YWtlIG9uIGRvY3VtZW50 cyByZWxhdGVkIHRvIHRoZSANCj4gID4gcHJhY3RpY2VzIG9mIHVzaW5nIHN1Y2ggd29yay4NCj4g ID4NCj4gID4gR29hbHMgYW5kIE1pbGVzdG9uZXM6DQo+ICA+DQo+ICA+IEp1bHkgMjAwOCBDb21w bGV0ZSBjaGFydGVyDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fDQo+IE9QU0VDIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBPUFNFQ0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczov L3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29wc2VjDQo+IA0KPiANCj4NCi0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tDQotDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fXw0KPiBPUFNFQyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gT1BTRUNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6 Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9vcHNlYw0KDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E35A.1497B164 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDMuMi8vRU4iPg0KPEhUTUw+ DQo8SEVBRD4NCjxNRVRBIEhUVFAtRVFVSVY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIgQ09OVEVOVD0idGV4dC9o dG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxNRVRBIE5BTUU9IkdlbmVyYXRvciIgQ09OVEVOVD0iTVMg RXhjaGFuZ2UgU2VydmVyIHZlcnNpb24gNi41Ljc2NTIuMjQiPg0KPFRJVExFPlJlOiBbT1BTRUNd IHJldmlzZWQgb3BzZWMgY2hhcnRlciB3b3JraW5nLWdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbDwvVElUTEU+DQo8 L0hFQUQ+DQo8Qk9EWT4NCjwhLS0gQ29udmVydGVkIGZyb20gdGV4dC9wbGFpbiBmb3JtYXQgLS0+ DQoNCjxQPjxGT05UIFNJWkU9Mj5PazxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCkp1c3QgYXMgbG9uZyBhcyB5b3VyIG1h a2luZyBhIGNvbnNjaW91czxCUj4NCkRlY2lzaW9uIHRvIGJlIHRoYXQgYnJvYXMgaW4gc2NvcGUu PEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KV2l0aCBlYXJsaWVyIHdvcmsgSSBmb3VuZCBpdCB1c2VmdWw8QlI+DQpUbyB0 aWdodGx5IGxpbWl0IHNjb3BlIGFzIGFuIGFpZCB0bzxCUj4NCktlZXBpbmcgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGZy b20gZXhwYW5kaW5nPEJSPg0KSW5maW5pdGx5IGV2ZXJ5IHRpbWUgc29tZW9uZTxCUj4NCkJyb3Vn aHQgdXAgc29tZXRoaW5nIG5ldzxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0t LS08QlI+DQpGcm9tOiBKb2VsIEphZWdnbGkgJmx0O2pvZWxqYUBib2d1cy5jb20mZ3Q7PEJSPg0K VG86IEpvbmVzLCBHZW9yZ2U8QlI+DQpDYzogamFibGV5QGNhLmFmaWxpYXMuaW5mbyAmbHQ7amFi bGV5QGNhLmFmaWxpYXMuaW5mbyZndDs7IG9wc2VjQGlldGYub3JnICZsdDtvcHNlY0BpZXRmLm9y ZyZndDs8QlI+DQpTZW50OiBUaHUgSnVsIDEwIDEyOjMzOjExIDIwMDg8QlI+DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBS ZTogW09QU0VDXSByZXZpc2VkIG9wc2VjIGNoYXJ0ZXIgd29ya2luZy1ncm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGw8 QlI+DQo8QlI+DQpKb25lcywgR2VvcmdlIHdyb3RlOjxCUj4NCiZndDsgTG9va3MuIEdvb2QuPEJS Pg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgT25seSBjb21tZW50L3F1ZXN0aW9uIGlzIG9uIHNjb3BlLjxCUj4N CiZndDsgRG8geW91IGludGVuZCB0aGF0IGV2ZXkgZGV2aWNlIGltcGxlbWVudGluZzxCUj4NCiZn dDsgSVAgYmUgaW4gc2NvcGUgKHRoYXQncyBob3cgSSByZWFkIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQpPEJSPg0KJmd0 OyBPciBkbyB5b3UgdGhpbmsgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgdXNlZnVsPEJSPg0KJmd0OyBUbyB0cnkgdG8g bGltaXQgdGhlIHNjb3BlIHRvIGRldmljZXM8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IFByb3ZpZGluZyB0cmFuc2l0IChl ZyBpc3AvbnNwL2VudGVycHJpc2U8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IENvcmUvZWRnZSBkZXZpY2VzKSA/PEJSPg0K PEJSPg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGF0IHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IHNjb3BlIGxpbWl0YXRpb25zIHN1YnN0YW50 aWFsbHkgcnVsZXMgb3V0PEJSPg0KYXBwbGljYXRpb24gbGF5ZXIgaXNzdWVzIG9uIGVuZC1zeXN0 ZW1zIGZyb20gYmVpbmcgaW4gc2NvcGUgZm9yIHRoaXM8QlI+DQp3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwLi4uPEJS Pg0KPEJSPg0KQSBkb2N1bWVudCBsaWtlIHRoZSBpY21wIGZpbHRlcmluZyBkb2N1bWVudCBvYnZp b3VzbHkgaGFzIHNvbWUgcmVsZXZhbmNlPEJSPg0KdG8gZW5kIHN5c3RlbXMgc28gYSBibGFua2V0 IHN0YXRlbWVudCB0aGF0IGVuZC1zeXN0ZW1zIGFyZSBvdXQgb2Ygc2NvcGU8QlI+DQppcyBJIHRo aW5rIG5vdCBzbyBkZXNpcmFibGUuPEJSPg0KPEJSPg0KJmd0OyAtLS1nZW9yZ2Ugam9uZXM8QlI+ DQomZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyAtLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tPEJSPg0KJmd0OyBG cm9tOiBvcHNlYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnICZsdDtvcHNlYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnJmd0 OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgVG86IG9wc2VjQGlldGYub3JnICZsdDtvcHNlY0BpZXRmLm9yZyZndDs8QlI+ DQomZ3Q7IFNlbnQ6IFdlZCBKdWwgMDkgMjM6MjI6NDYgMjAwODxCUj4NCiZndDsgU3ViamVjdDog W09QU0VDXSByZXZpc2VkIG9wc2VjIGNoYXJ0ZXIgd29ya2luZy1ncm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGw8QlI+ DQomZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyBIaSBhbGwsPEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgVGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIg b2YgdGhlIG9wc2VjIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgc2F3IHNvbWUgYWN0aXZlIHJldmlldyBzb21lPEJS Pg0KJmd0OyB0aW1lIGFnbywgYW5kIHRoZSByZXN1bHQgd2FzIHRoZSB0ZXh0IGluY2x1ZGVkIGJl bG93LjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IFlvdSdsbCBub3RlIHRoYXQgd2UgaGF2ZSBkZWxpYmVy YXRlbHkgaW5jbHVkZWQgYSBuZWFyLWVtcHR5IHNldCBvZjxCUj4NCiZndDsgbWlsZXN0b25lcy4g SXQgaXMgdGhlIG9waW5pb24gb2YgdGhlIGNoYWlycyB0aGF0IGEgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCB3aXRo PEJSPg0KJmd0OyBhIGNoYXJ0ZXIgc3VjaCBhcyB0aGlzIGlzIGJ5IGl0cyB2ZXJ5IG5hdHVyZSBv cGVuLWVuZGVkLCBhbmQgdGhhdDxCUj4NCiZndDsgYXNzZW1ibGluZyBhIGRldGFpbGVkIHNldCBv ZiB3YXlwb2ludHMgb24gYSBqb3VybmV5IHRoYXQgaXMgZ3VhcmFudGVlZDxCUj4NCiZndDsgdG8g aGF2ZSBubyBmaW5hbCBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbiBtYWtlcyBubyBzZW5zZS4gSXQgaXMgZW50aXJlbHkg cG9zc2libGU8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IHRoYXQgdGhlIElFU0cgd2lsbCBkaXNhZ3JlZSwgYW5kIHRoYXQg d2Ugd2lsbCBoYXZlIHRvIHJldmlzaXQgdGhpczs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGhvd2V2ZXIsIG91ciBBRHMg YXJlIHN1cHBvcnRpdmUgb2YgdGhpcyBhcHByb2FjaC48QlI+DQomZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyBKb2Vs IGFuZCBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gcmVxdWVzdCBhIG9uZSB3ZWVrIHdvcmtpbmctZ3JvdXAgbGFz dC1jYWxsIG9uPEJSPg0KJmd0OyB0aGlzIHJldmlzZWQgY2hhcnRlciw8QlI+DQomZ3Q7PEJSPg0K Jmd0OyBXZSB3b3VsZCB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggbGlrZSB0byBoZWFyIGFjdGl2ZSByZXNwb25zZXMgZnJv bSBwZW9wbGUgaGVyZTxCUj4NCiZndDsgYWJvdXQgdGhlIHRleHQgYmVsb3csIHRvIGNvbmZpcm0g dGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBhbmQgbm90IGp1c3QgYTxCUj4NCiZndDsgYnJva2VuIGxp c3QuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIHdlIGFsc28gZW5jb3VyYWdlIHBlb3BsZSB0byByZXZpZXcgcHJldmlvdXM8 QlI+DQomZ3Q7IGRpc2N1c3Npb25zIG9uIHRoaXMgbGlzdCB0aHJvdWdoIGl0cyBhcmNoaXZlIHRv IGF2b2lkIHJlLWhhc2hpbmcgb2xkPEJSPg0KJmd0OyBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyB1bm5lY2Vzc2FyaWx5 LjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IDxBIEhSRUY9Imh0dHA6Ly93 d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9vcHNlYy9jdXJyZW50L21haWxsaXN0Lmh0bWwi Pmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9vcHNlYy9jdXJyZW50L21haWxs aXN0Lmh0bWw8L0E+PEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgVGhlIGxhc3QtY2FsbCB3aWxsIGVuZCBv biBUaHVyc2RheSAyMDA4LTA3LTE3IDA0MDAgVVRDLjxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IFRoYW5r cyw8QlI+DQomZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsgSm9lIGFuZCBKb2VsPEJSPg0KJmd0OzxC Uj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBHb2Fsczo8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgVGhlIE9QU0VDIFdHIHdpbGwgZG9jdW1lbnQgYmVzdCBjdXJyZW50IHByYWN0 aWNlcyB3aXRoIHJlZ2FyZCB0bzxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBuZXR3b3JrIHNlY3VyaXR5 LiBJbiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIGFuIGVmZm9ydCB3aWxsIGJlIG1hZGUgdG8gY2xhcmlmeTxCUj4NCiZn dDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyB0aGUgcmF0aW9uYWwgc3VwcG9ydGluZyBjdXJyZW50IG9wZXJhdGlvbmFs IHByYWN0aWNlLCBhZGRyZXNzIGdhcHM8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgaW4gY3VycmVudGx5 IHVuZGVyc3Rvb2QgYmVzdCBwcmFjdGljZXMgZm9yIGZvcndhcmRpbmcsIGNvbnRyb2w8QlI+DQom Z3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgcGxhbmUsIGFuZCBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IHBsYW5lIHNlY3VyaXR5IGFuZCBt YWtlIGNsZWFyIHRoZSBsaWFiaWxpdGllczxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBpbmhlcmVudCBp biBzZWN1cml0eSBwcmFjdGljZXMgd2hlcmUgdGhleSBleGlzdC48QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZn dDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgU2NvcGU6PEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7PEJSPg0K Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IFRoZSBzY29wZSBvZiB0aGUgT1BTRUMgV0cgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgdG8g aW5jbHVkZSB0aGUgcHJvdGVjdGlvbiBhbmQ8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgc2VjdXJlIG9w ZXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZm9yd2FyZGluZywgY29udHJvbCBhbmQgbWFuYWdlbWVudCBwbGFuZXMu PEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IERvY3VtZW50YXRpb24g b2YgYmVzdCBjb21tb24gcHJhY3RpY2VzLCByZXZpc2lvbiBvZiBleGlzdGluZzxCUj4NCiZndDsm bmJzcDsgJmd0OyBvcGVyYXRpb25hbCBzZWN1cml0eSBwcmFjdGljZXMgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGFuZCBw cm9wb3NhbHMgZm9yIG5ldzxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBhcHByb2FjaGVzIHRvIG9wZXJh dGlvbmFsIGNoYWxsZW5nZXMgYXJlIGluIHNjb3BlLjxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OzxCUj4N CiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBNZXRob2Q6PEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyZu YnNwOyAmZ3Q7IEl0IGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIHdvcmsgcHJvZHVjdCBvZiB0aGUgd29y a2luZyBncm91cCB3aWxsIGZhbGw8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgaW50byB0aGUgY2F0ZWdv cnkgb2YgYmVzdCBjdXJyZW50IHByYWN0aWNlcyBkb2N1bWVudHMuIFRheG9ub215IG9yPEJSPg0K Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IHByb2JsZW0gc3RhdGVtZW50IGRvY3VtZW50cyBtYXkgcHJvdmlkZSBh IGJhc2lzIGZvciBiZXN0IGN1cnJlbnQ8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgcHJhY3RpY2VzIGRv Y3VtZW50cy48QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgQmVzdCBD dXJyZW50IFByYWN0aWNlcyBEb2N1bWVudDxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsm bmJzcDsgJmd0OyBGb3IgZWFjaCB0b3BpYyBhZGRyZXNzZWQsIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2lsbCBiZSBw cm9kdWNlZCB0aGF0IGF0dGVtcHRzPEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IHRvIGNhcHR1cmUgY3Vy cmVudCBwcmFjdGljZXMgcmVsYXRlZCB0byBzZWN1cmUgb3BlcmF0aW9uLiBUaGlzIHdpbGw8QlI+ DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgYmUgcHJpbWFyaWx5IGJhc2VkIG9uIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIGV4cGVy aWVuY2UuIEVhY2ggZW50cnkgd2lsbCBsaXN0OjxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZn dDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyAqIHRocmVhdHMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLDxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyAq IGN1cnJlbnQgcHJhY3RpY2VzIGZvciBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIHRoZSB0aHJlYXQsPEJSPg0KJmd0OyZu YnNwOyAmZ3Q7ICogcHJvdG9jb2xzLCB0b29scyBhbmQgdGVjaG5vbG9naWVzIGV4dGFudCBhdCB0 aGUgdGltZSBvZiB3cml0aW5nPEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IHRoYXQgYXJlIHVzZWQgdG8g YWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgdGhyZWF0LDxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyAqIHRoZSBwb3NzaWJpbGl0 eSB0aGF0IGEgc29sdXRpb24gZG9lcyBub3QgZXhpc3Qgd2l0aGluIGV4aXN0aW5nPEJSPg0KJmd0 OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IHRvb2xzIG9yIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcy48QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDs8 QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgVGF4b25vbXkgYW5kIFByb2JsZW0gU3RhdGVtZW50IERvY3Vt ZW50czxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBBIGRvY3VtZW50 IHdoaWNoIGF0dGVtcHRzIHRvIGRlc2NyaWJlIHRoZSBzY29wZSBvZiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyPEJSPg0K Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIHNlY3VyaXR5IGNoYWxsZW5nZSBvciBwcm9ibGVt IHNwYWNlIHdpdGhvdXQgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHk8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgY29taW5nIHRv IGEgY29uY2x1c2lvbiBvciBwcm9wb3NpbmcgYSBzb2x1dGlvbi4gU3VjaCBhIGRvY3VtZW50PEJS Pg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IG1pZ2h0IGJlIGEgcHJlY3Vyc29yIHRvIGEmbmJzcDsgYmVzdCBj b21tb24gcHJhY3RpY2VzIGRvY3VtZW50LjxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsm bmJzcDsgJmd0OyBXaGlsZSB0aGUgcHJpbmNpcGFsIGlucHV0IG9mIHRoZSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3Vw IGFyZSBvcGVyYXRpb25hbDxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBleHBlcmllbmNlIGFuZCBuZWVk cywgdGhlIG91dHB1dCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlyZWN0ZWQgYm90aCB0byBwcm92aWRlPEJSPg0KJmd0 OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IGd1aWRhbmNlIHRvIHRoZSBvcGVyYXRvcnMgY29tbXVuaXR5IGFzIHdlbGwg YXMgdG8gV29ya2luZyBHcm91cHM8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgdGhhdCBkZXZlbG9wIHBy b3RvY29scyBvciB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5IG9mIHByb3RvY29sIGRldmVsb3BlcnMgYXQ8QlI+DQom Z3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgbGFyZ2UsIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgdG8gdGhlIGltcGxlbWVudGVycyBvZiB0 aGVzZSBwcm90b2NvbHMuPEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7 IE5vbi1Hb2Fsczo8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgVGhl IE9wZXJhdGlvbnMgc2VjdXJpdHkgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBpcyBub3QgdGhlIHBsYWNlIHRvIGRv IG5ldzxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBwcm90b2NvbHMgb3IgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGRvY3Vt ZW50cy48QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgTmV3IHByb3Rv Y29sIGRldmVsb3BtZW50IG9yIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyB3b3JrIHNob3VsZCBiZSBhZGRyZXNzZWQg aW48QlI+DQomZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ICZndDsgYSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGNoYXJ0ZXJlZCBpbiB0aGUg YXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgYXJlYSBvciBhcyBpbmRpdmlkdWFsPEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IHN1 Ym1pc3Npb25zLiBUaGUgT1BTRUMgV0cgbWF5IHRha2Ugb24gZG9jdW1lbnRzIHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8g dGhlPEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IHByYWN0aWNlcyBvZiB1c2luZyBzdWNoIHdvcmsuPEJS Pg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7PEJSPg0KJmd0OyZuYnNwOyAmZ3Q7IEdvYWxzIGFuZCBNaWxlc3Rv bmVzOjxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDsmbmJzcDsgJmd0OyBKdWx5IDIwMDgg Q29tcGxldGUgY2hhcnRlcjxCUj4NCiZndDsgX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX188QlI+DQomZ3Q7IE9QU0VDIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdDxCUj4NCiZndDsg T1BTRUNAaWV0Zi5vcmc8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IDxBIEhSRUY9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21h aWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vb3BzZWMiPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGlu Zm8vb3BzZWM8L0E+PEJSPg0KJmd0OzxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LTxCUj4NCiZndDs8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fPEJSPg0KJmd0OyBPUFNFQyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Q8QlI+DQomZ3Q7IE9QU0VD QGlldGYub3JnPEJSPg0KJmd0OyA8QSBIUkVGPSJodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFu L2xpc3RpbmZvL29wc2VjIj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL29w c2VjPC9BPjxCUj4NCjxCUj4NCjwvRk9OVD4NCjwvUD4NCg0KPC9CT0RZPg0KPC9IVE1MPg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8E35A.1497B164-- --===============0305441191== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec --===============0305441191==-- From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 11 09:24:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE533A6AF6; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5FB3A6AF6 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jgu3Qn76XrUe for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.33.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F8F3A67F9 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.97]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id m6BGOFWu027940; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:24:16 +0100 Received: from smtp.corp.google.com (spacemonkey1.corp.google.com [192.168.120.115]) by wpaz33.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id m6BGOD12023442 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:14 -0700 Received: from [10.0.1.3] ([65.123.0.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.corp.google.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6BGO9vv020321 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:10 -0700 Message-Id: <34A00089-FD24-4C9B-A5AD-F463AF48FB88@kumari.net> From: Warren Kumari To: "Jones, George" In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:24:09 -0700 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924) Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1461455973==" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org --===============1461455973== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-259--884435757 --Apple-Mail-259--884435757 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I hereby move that Future OpSec Working Group docs All be in Haiku form. ;-) W On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Jones, George wrote: > Ok > > Just as long as your making a conscious > Decision to be that broas in scope. > > With earlier work I found it useful > To tightly limit scope as an aid to > Keeping documents from expanding > Infinitly every time someone > Brought up something new > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joel Jaeggli > To: Jones, George > Cc: jabley@ca.afilias.info ; opsec@ietf.org > > Sent: Thu Jul 10 12:33:11 2008 > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call > > Jones, George wrote: > > Looks. Good. > > > > Only comment/question is on scope. > > Do you intend that evey device implementing > > IP be in scope (that's how I read this draft) > > Or do you think it would be useful > > To try to limit the scope to devices > > Providing transit (eg isp/nsp/enterprise > > Core/edge devices) ? > > I think that the current scope limitations substantially rules out > application layer issues on end-systems from being in scope for this > working group... > > A document like the icmp filtering document obviously has some > relevance > to end systems so a blanket statement that end-systems are out of > scope > is I think not so desirable. > > > ---george jones > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org > > To: opsec@ietf.org > > Sent: Wed Jul 09 23:22:46 2008 > > Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call > > > > Hi all, > > > > The charter of the opsec working group saw some active review some > > time ago, and the result was the text included below. > > > > You'll note that we have deliberately included a near-empty set of > > milestones. It is the opinion of the chairs that a working group > with > > a charter such as this is by its very nature open-ended, and that > > assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is > guaranteed > > to have no final destination makes no sense. It is entirely possible > > that the IESG will disagree, and that we will have to revisit this; > > however, our ADs are supportive of this approach. > > > > Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group last- > call on > > this revised charter, > > > > We would very much like to hear active responses from people here > > about the text below, to confirm that we have consensus and not > just a > > broken list. However, we also encourage people to review previous > > discussions on this list through its archive to avoid re-hashing old > > discussions unnecessarily. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html > > > > The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Joe and Joel > > > > > Goals: > > > > > > The OPSEC WG will document best current practices with regard to > > > network security. In particular an effort will be made to clarify > > > the rational supporting current operational practice, address > gaps > > > in currently understood best practices for forwarding, control > > > plane, and management plane security and make clear the > liabilities > > > inherent in security practices where they exist. > > > > > > Scope: > > > > > > The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection > and > > > secure operation of the forwarding, control and management > planes. > > > > > > Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing > > > operational security practices documents and proposals for new > > > approaches to operational challenges are in scope. > > > > > > Method: > > > > > > It is expected that the work product of the working group will > fall > > > into the category of best current practices documents. Taxonomy > or > > > problem statement documents may provide a basis for best current > > > practices documents. > > > > > > Best Current Practices Document > > > > > > For each topic addressed, a document will be produced that > attempts > > > to capture current practices related to secure operation. This > will > > > be primarily based on operational experience. Each entry will > list: > > > > > > * threats addressed, > > > * current practices for addressing the threat, > > > * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing > > > that are used to address the threat, > > > * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing > > > tools or technologies. > > > > > > Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents > > > > > > A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular > > > operational security challenge or problem space without > necessarily > > > coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document > > > might be a precursor to a best common practices document. > > > > > > While the principal input of the Working Group are operational > > > experience and needs, the output should be directed both to > provide > > > guidance to the operators community as well as to Working Groups > > > that develop protocols or the community of protocol developers at > > > large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols. > > > > > > Non-Goals: > > > > > > The Operations security working group is not the place to do new > > > protocols or requirements documents. > > > > > > New protocol development or requirements work should be > addressed in > > > a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as > individual > > > submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related to the > > > practices of using such work. > > > > > > Goals and Milestones: > > > > > > July 2008 Complete charter > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSEC mailing list > > OPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSEC mailing list > > OPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec --Apple-Mail-259--884435757 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I hereby move that
Future = OpSec Working Group docs 
All be in Haiku = form.

;-)
W

On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Jones, George = wrote:

Ok

Just as long as your making a conscious
= Decision to be that broas in scope.

With earlier work I found = it useful
To tightly limit scope as an aid to
Keeping documents = from expanding
Infinitly every time someone
Brought up something = new

----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Jones, = George
Cc: jabley@ca.afilias.info <jabley@ca.afilias.info>; opsec@ietf.org <opsec@ietf.org>
Sent: Thu Jul 10 = 12:33:11 2008
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter = working-group last call

Jones, George wrote:
> Looks. = Good.
>
> Only comment/question is on scope.
> Do you intend = that evey device implementing
> IP be in scope (that's how I read = this draft)
> Or do you think it would be useful
> To try to = limit the scope to devices
> Providing transit (eg = isp/nsp/enterprise
> Core/edge devices) ?

I think that the = current scope limitations substantially rules out
application layer = issues on end-systems from being in scope for this
working = group...

A document like the icmp filtering document obviously = has some relevance
to end systems so a blanket statement that = end-systems are out of scope
is I think not so desirable.

> = ---george jones
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org <opsec-bounces@ietf.org>
> = To: opsec@ietf.org <opsec@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wed Jul = 09 23:22:46 2008
> Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter = working-group last call
>
> Hi all,
>
> The charter of = the opsec working group saw some active review some
> time ago, and = the result was the text included below.
>
> You'll note that we = have deliberately included a near-empty set of
> milestones. It is = the opinion of the chairs that a working group with
> a charter such = as this is by its very nature open-ended, and that
> assembling a = detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is guaranteed
> to have = no final destination makes no sense. It is entirely possible
> that = the IESG will disagree, and that we will have to revisit this;
> = however, our ADs are supportive of this approach.
>
> Joel and I = would like to request a one week working-group last-call on
> this = revised charter,
>
> We would very much like to hear active = responses from people here
> about the text below, to confirm that = we have consensus and not just a
> broken list. However, we also = encourage people to review previous
> discussions on this list = through its archive to avoid re-hashing old
> discussions = unnecessarily.
>
>    = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html
= >
> The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC.
= >
> Thanks,
>
>
> Joe and Joel
>
>  > = Goals:
>  >
>  > The OPSEC WG will document best = current practices with regard to
>  > network security. In = particular an effort will be made to clarify
>  > the rational = supporting current operational practice, address gaps
>  > in = currently understood best practices for forwarding, control
>  = > plane, and management plane security and make clear the = liabilities
>  > inherent in security practices where they = exist.
>  >
>  > Scope:
>  >
>  > = The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection and
= >  > secure operation of the forwarding, control and management = planes.
>  >
>  > Documentation of best common = practices, revision of existing
>  > operational security = practices documents and proposals for new
>  > approaches to = operational challenges are in scope.
>  >
>  > = Method:
>  >
>  > It is expected that the work product = of the working group will fall
>  > into the category of best = current practices documents. Taxonomy or
>  > problem statement = documents may provide a basis for best current
>  > practices = documents.
>  >
>  > Best Current Practices = Document
>  >
>  > For each topic addressed, a = document will be produced that attempts
>  > to capture current = practices related to secure operation. This will
>  > be = primarily based on operational experience. Each entry will list:
= >  >
>  > * threats addressed,
>  > * current = practices for addressing the threat,
>  > * protocols, tools = and technologies extant at the time of writing
>  > that are = used to address the threat,
>  > * the possibility that a = solution does not exist within existing
>  > tools or = technologies.
>  >
>  > Taxonomy and Problem Statement = Documents
>  >
>  > A document which attempts to = describe the scope of particular
>  > operational security = challenge or problem space without necessarily
>  > coming to a = conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document
>  > might = be a precursor to a  best common practices document.
>  = >
>  > While the principal input of the Working Group are = operational
>  > experience and needs, the output should be = directed both to provide
>  > guidance to the operators = community as well as to Working Groups
>  > that develop = protocols or the community of protocol developers at
>  > = large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols.
>  = >
>  > Non-Goals:
>  >
>  > The Operations = security working group is not the place to do new
>  > = protocols or requirements documents.
>  >
>  > New = protocol development or requirements work should be addressed in
= >  > a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as = individual
>  > submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents = related to the
>  > practices of using such work.
>  = >
>  > Goals and Milestones:
>  >
>  > July = 2008 Complete charter
> = _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing = list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/opsec
>
>
> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC = mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/opsec

= _______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing = list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/= mailman/listinfo/opsec

= --Apple-Mail-259--884435757-- --===============1461455973== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec --===============1461455973==-- From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 11 09:33:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F33A28C232; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5062A28C209 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:33:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OJfLR498GPYj for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.207.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 61B6F28C232 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 79825 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Jul 2008 16:33:20 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=ol6H9Vw1v004Qlc6MweGIRhS5bzN/5RbCFbyWQfmrVzLBglXdeBYXQkGr2w9rbbSf5tq05Lqsb7SOCa8IPREKtrkCskAj5t8NP7R+XAPRc/Hcs+qHCDr8KFYs1Fd+e1Q2ZRg1yM4/QZfA/XwsJ9tzUbSIJH3lzsXACyzfJkKzFU=; Received: from [68.33.82.90] by web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:33:20 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1042.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:33:20 -0700 (PDT) From: David Barak To: Warren Kumari , "Jones, George" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <126335.79460.qm@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0495331810==" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org --===============0495331810== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1048532386-1215794000=:79460" --0-1048532386-1215794000=:79460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If an idea=0Ais post-facto obvious=0Aneed it a second?=0AShould this though= t come to=0Aa vote, could there be any=0Aone who would say "nay"?David Bara= k=0ANeed Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: =0Ahttp://www.listentothefranchise.c= om=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Warren Kumari =0ATo: "Jones, George" =0ACc: opsec@ietf.org=0AS= ent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:24:09 PM=0ASubject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec= charter working-group last call=0A=0AI hereby move that=0AFuture OpSec Wor= king Group docs=A0=0AAll be in Haiku form.=0A=0A;-)=0AW=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Jul 1= 1, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Jones, George wrote:=0A=0AOk=0A=0AJust as long as your= making a conscious=0ADecision to be that broas in scope.=0A=0AWith earlier= work I found it useful=0ATo tightly limit scope as an aid to=0AKeeping doc= uments from expanding=0AInfinitly every time someone=0ABrought up something= new=0A=0A----- Original Message -----=0AFrom: Joel Jaeggli =0ATo: Jones, George=0ACc: jabley@ca.afilias.info ; opsec@ietf.org =0ASent: Thu Jul 10 12:33:11 2008=0ASubj= ect: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call=0A=0AJones, = George wrote:=0A> Looks. Good.=0A>=0A> Only comment/question is on scope.= =0A> Do you intend that evey device implementing=0A> IP be in scope (that's= how I read this draft)=0A> Or do you think it would be useful=0A> To try t= o limit the scope to devices=0A> Providing transit (eg isp/nsp/enterprise= =0A> Core/edge devices) ?=0A=0AI think that the current scope limitations s= ubstantially rules out=0Aapplication layer issues on end-systems from being= in scope for this=0Aworking group...=0A=0AA document like the icmp filteri= ng document obviously has some relevance=0Ato end systems so a blanket stat= ement that end-systems are out of scope=0Ais I think not so desirable.=0A= =0A> ---george jones=0A>=0A> ----- Original Message -----=0A> From: opsec-b= ounces@ietf.org =0A> To: opsec@ietf.org =0A> Sent: Wed Jul 09 23:22:46 2008=0A> Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec= charter working-group last call=0A>=0A> Hi all,=0A>=0A> The charter of the= opsec working group saw some active review some=0A> time ago, and the resu= lt was the text included below.=0A>=0A> You'll note that we have deliberate= ly included a near-empty set of=0A> milestones. It is the opinion of the ch= airs that a working group with=0A> a charter such as this is by its very na= ture open-ended, and that=0A> assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a j= ourney that is guaranteed=0A> to have no final destination makes no sense. = It is entirely possible=0A> that the IESG will disagree, and that we will h= ave to revisit this;=0A> however, our ADs are supportive of this approach.= =0A>=0A> Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group last-cal= l on=0A> this revised charter,=0A>=0A> We would very much like to hear acti= ve responses from people here=0A> about the text below, to confirm that we = have consensus and not just a=0A> broken list. However, we also encourage p= eople to review previous=0A> discussions on this list through its archive t= o avoid re-hashing old=0A> discussions unnecessarily.=0A>=0A>=A0=A0=A0 http= ://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html=0A>=0A> The la= st-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC.=0A>=0A> Thanks,=0A>=0A>= =0A> Joe and Joel=0A>=0A>=A0 > Goals:=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > The OPSEC WG will d= ocument best current practices with regard to=0A>=A0 > network security. In= particular an effort will be made to clarify=0A>=A0 > the rational support= ing current operational practice, address gaps=0A>=A0 > in currently unders= tood best practices for forwarding, control=0A>=A0 > plane, and management = plane security and make clear the liabilities=0A>=A0 > inherent in security= practices where they exist.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > Scope:=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > The= scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection and=0A>=A0 > s= ecure operation of the forwarding, control and management planes.=0A>=A0 >= =0A>=A0 > Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing=0A>= =A0 > operational security practices documents and proposals for new=0A>=A0= > approaches to operational challenges are in scope.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > Met= hod:=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > It is expected that the work product of the working = group will fall=0A>=A0 > into the category of best current practices docume= nts. Taxonomy or=0A>=A0 > problem statement documents may provide a basis f= or best current=0A>=A0 > practices documents.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > Best Curren= t Practices Document=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > For each topic addressed, a document= will be produced that attempts=0A>=A0 > to capture current practices relat= ed to secure operation. This will=0A>=A0 > be primarily based on operationa= l experience. Each entry will list:=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > * threats addressed,= =0A>=A0 > * current practices for addressing the threat,=0A>=A0 > * protoco= ls, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing=0A>=A0 > that are = used to address the threat,=0A>=A0 > * the possibility that a solution does= not exist within existing=0A>=A0 > tools or technologies.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 = > Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > A document whi= ch attempts to describe the scope of particular=0A>=A0 > operational securi= ty challenge or problem space without necessarily=0A>=A0 > coming to a conc= lusion or proposing a solution. Such a document=0A>=A0 > might be a precurs= or to a=A0 best common practices document.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > While the prin= cipal input of the Working Group are operational=0A>=A0 > experience and ne= eds, the output should be directed both to provide=0A>=A0 > guidance to the= operators community as well as to Working Groups=0A>=A0 > that develop pro= tocols or the community of protocol developers at=0A>=A0 > large, as well a= s to the implementers of these protocols.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > Non-Goals:=0A>= =A0 >=0A>=A0 > The Operations security working group is not the place to do= new=0A>=A0 > protocols or requirements documents.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > New pr= otocol development or requirements work should be addressed in=0A>=A0 > a w= orking group chartered in the appropriate area or as individual=0A>=A0 > su= bmissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related to the=0A>=A0 > pract= ices of using such work.=0A>=A0 >=0A>=A0 > Goals and Milestones:=0A>=A0 >= =0A>=A0 > July 2008 Complete charter=0A> __________________________________= _____________=0A> OPSEC mailing list=0A> OPSEC@ietf.org=0A> https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec=0A>=0A>=0A> ----------------------------------= --------------------------------------=0A>=0A> ____________________________= ___________________=0A> OPSEC mailing list=0A> OPSEC@ietf.org=0A> https://w= ww.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec=0A=0A___________________________________= ____________=0AOPSEC mailing list=0AOPSEC@ietf.org=0Ahttps://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/opsec=0A=0A=0A --0-1048532386-1215794000=:79460 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

If an idea

is post-facto obvious

need it a second?

 
Should this thought come to
a vote, could there be any
one who would say "nay"?
 
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com


----- Original Message ----
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: "Jones, George" <gmjones@mitre.org>
Cc: opsec@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:24:09 PM
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call

I hereby move that
Future OpSec Working Group docs 
All be in Haiku form.

;-)
W


On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:29 AM, Jones, George wrote:

Ok

Just as long as your making a conscious
Decision to be that broas in scope.

With earlier work I found it useful
To tightly limit scope as an aid to
Keeping documents from expanding
Infinitly every time someone
Brought up something new

----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Jones, George
Cc: jabley@ca.afilias.info <jabley@ca.afilias.info>; opsec@ietf.org <opsec@ietf.org>
Sent: Thu Jul 10 12:33:11 2008
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call

Jones, George wrote:
> Looks. Good.
>
> Only comment/question is on scope.
> Do you intend that evey device implementing
> IP be in scope (that's how I read this draft)
> Or do you think it would be useful
> To try to limit the scope to devices
> Providing transit (eg isp/nsp/enterprise
> Core/edge devices) ?

I think that the current scope limitations substantially rules out
application layer issues on end-systems from being in scope for this
working group...

A document like the icmp filtering document obviously has some relevance
to end systems so a blanket statement that end-systems are out of scope
is I think not so desirable.

> ---george jones
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: opsec-bounces@ietf.org <opsec-bounces@ietf.org>
> To: opsec@ietf.org <opsec@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wed Jul 09 23:22:46 2008
> Subject: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call
>
> Hi all,
>
> The charter of the opsec working group saw some active review some
> time ago, and the result was the text included below.
>
> You'll note that we have deliberately included a near-empty set of
> milestones. It is the opinion of the chairs that a working group with
> a charter such as this is by its very nature open-ended, and that
> assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is guaranteed
> to have no final destination makes no sense. It is entirely possible
> that the IESG will disagree, and that we will have to revisit this;
> however, our ADs are supportive of this approach.
>
> Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group last-call on
> this revised charter,
>
> We would very much like to hear active responses from people here
> about the text below, to confirm that we have consensus and not just a
> broken list. However, we also encourage people to review previous
> discussions on this list through its archive to avoid re-hashing old
> discussions unnecessarily.
>
>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html
>
> The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Joe and Joel
>
>  > Goals:
>  >
>  > The OPSEC WG will document best current practices with regard to
>  > network security. In particular an effort will be made to clarify
>  > the rational supporting current operational practice, address gaps
>  > in currently understood best practices for forwarding, control
>  > plane, and management plane security and make clear the liabilities
>  > inherent in security practices where they exist.
>  >
>  > Scope:
>  >
>  > The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection and
>  > secure operation of the forwarding, control and management planes.
>  >
>  > Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing
>  > operational security practices documents and proposals for new
>  > approaches to operational challenges are in scope.
>  >
>  > Method:
>  >
>  > It is expected that the work product of the working group will fall
>  > into the category of best current practices documents. Taxonomy or
>  > problem statement documents may provide a basis for best current
>  > practices documents.
>  >
>  > Best Current Practices Document
>  >
>  > For each topic addressed, a document will be produced that attempts
>  > to capture current practices related to secure operation. This will
>  > be primarily based on operational experience. Each entry will list:
>  >
>  > * threats addressed,
>  > * current practices for addressing the threat,
>  > * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing
>  > that are used to address the threat,
>  > * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing
>  > tools or technologies.
>  >
>  > Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents
>  >
>  > A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular
>  > operational security challenge or problem space without necessarily
>  > coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document
>  > might be a precursor to a  best common practices document.
>  >
>  > While the principal input of the Working Group are operational
>  > experience and needs, the output should be directed both to provide
>  > guidance to the operators community as well as to Working Groups
>  > that develop protocols or the community of protocol developers at
>  > large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols.
>  >
>  > Non-Goals:
>  >
>  > The Operations security working group is not the place to do new
>  > protocols or requirements documents.
>  >
>  > New protocol development or requirements work should be addressed in
>  > a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as individual
>  > submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related to the
>  > practices of using such work.
>  >
>  > Goals and Milestones:
>  >
>  > July 2008 Complete charter
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec


--0-1048532386-1215794000=:79460-- --===============0495331810== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec --===============0495331810==-- From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 11 09:59:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096983A6B7E; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:59:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3633A6B7E for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:59:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sgdO-kSrKPtZ for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DB33A6B75 for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:59:21 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Cc:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=Pl0N0mX4dv05C4ao+zWFSm9QLLW7+cnYXUvdeD5Qvt/wQmae/cYVAy1R5QfLvF1cx7TGIskwhYMi6LjvxZfSBXMbz5t8XD2TAhK5nb0gvCUDEU5Ra+tAG8hOzJ10Yr/J; Received: from [199.212.90.30] (helo=yxu1b30.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KHM2g-0006Wl-EB; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:04:22 +0000 Message-Id: From: Joe Abley To: David Barak In-Reply-To: <126335.79460.qm@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:59:33 -0400 References: <126335.79460.qm@web31805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org On 11 Jul 2008, at 12:33, David Barak wrote: > If an idea > > is post-facto obvious > > need it a second? > meditate on this: real ideas once spoken are met with silence Joe _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 14 15:34:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24AE28C487; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D7C28C486 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:23 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1VuI6Gnb96K for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2B128C488 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.103.16.227] ([192.103.16.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6EMYgrM039343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:34:42 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <487BD47B.8070004@bogus.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:34:35 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsec wg mailing list X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/7709/Mon Jul 14 16:16:52 2008 on nagasaki.bogus.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: [OPSEC] Agenda Items for 72 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org What we've got thus far... 1. rechartering status 2. briefly discuss and collect feedback for fernando on draft-gont-opsec-icmp-filtering-00 3. I've asked the SAVI folks to dicuss the direction of their efforts, now that it's turned into a working group that seems more important than ever. Is there anything else that should be on the table, bearing in mind that we only have an hour so there's room for more but not dramatically so? thanks joel _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 21 09:48:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572443A6AB2; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD9F3A684D for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.385 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vbQE4HlbwETr for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B36B3A68DC for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:39 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=b6L861C9fJIvzjau+gZYB5pYd2vOwC/ednQDfGw45amTKJcLYt96tPf7TA6U2U9K3ukGpnuzkWA/FF5Wg6d/wOaymFk5krqKJmXdfYci/opUHhmm8KdAEvSJNizbmJ47; Received: from [199.212.90.27] (helo=yxu1b27.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KKxyA-0002XZ-UL for opsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:10:39 +0000 Message-Id: <65788426-5C23-4927-9D96-1D55C54F2048@ca.afilias.info> From: Joe Abley To: opsec@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <83424BD5-D8DB-4505-B1D3-540CE9731707@ca.afilias.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:10:38 -0400 References: <83424BD5-D8DB-4505-B1D3-540CE9731707@ca.afilias.info> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org On 21 Jul 2008, at 12:05, Joe Abley wrote: > The new charter will now be sent to the IESG. I plan to include a > note which will explain briefly our thinking with regard to the near- > empty g'n'm section. Oops, process clarification -- it will, in fact, now be sent to our ADs according to the process documented in RFC 2418. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 21 09:48:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3FD3A6ACB; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A957E3A6ACB for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vbdBworwXtX for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61783A684D for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer; b=mqkRffzpM/YxqhJUPpoCazlT4FC14xnd9CaXyY/xuEK0Ap4ihqM+fIDl/XDZitDs0lFdEvW7usxlLsp86UHmqKlK9Xk2pJ2x24mMHkgl/dN2x/YRNeVl9YR35TK0nfOE; Received: from [199.212.90.27] (helo=yxu1b27.hopcount.ca) by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KKxtX-0002Uf-Th for opsec@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:59 +0000 Message-Id: <83424BD5-D8DB-4505-B1D3-540CE9731707@ca.afilias.info> From: Joe Abley To: opsec@ietf.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:05:51 -0400 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Subject: Re: [OPSEC] revised opsec charter working-group last call X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Hi again, This (below) last-call for the revised opsec charter ended a few days ago. Joel and I have discussed the list traffic that resulted, and have reviewed the earlier discussion from which the charter text below emerged. We are prepared to declare that we observe consensus on this text. The new charter will now be sent to the IESG. I plan to include a note which will explain briefly our thinking with regard to the near-empty g'n'm section. Many thanks for your consideration. Joe On 9 Jul 2008, at 23:22, Joe Abley wrote: > Hi all, > > The charter of the opsec working group saw some active review some > time ago, and the result was the text included below. > > You'll note that we have deliberately included a near-empty set of > milestones. It is the opinion of the chairs that a working group > with a charter such as this is by its very nature open-ended, and > that assembling a detailed set of waypoints on a journey that is > guaranteed to have no final destination makes no sense. It is > entirely possible that the IESG will disagree, and that we will have > to revisit this; however, our ADs are supportive of this approach. > > Joel and I would like to request a one week working-group last-call > on this revised charter, > > We would very much like to hear active responses from people here > about the text below, to confirm that we have consensus and not just > a broken list. However, we also encourage people to review previous > discussions on this list through its archive to avoid re-hashing old > discussions unnecessarily. > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec/current/maillist.html > > The last-call will end on Thursday 2008-07-17 0400 UTC. > > Thanks, > > > Joe and Joel > >> Goals: >> >> The OPSEC WG will document best current practices with regard to >> network security. In particular an effort will be made to clarify >> the rational supporting current operational practice, address gaps >> in currently understood best practices for forwarding, control >> plane, and management plane security and make clear the liabilities >> inherent in security practices where they exist. >> >> Scope: >> >> The scope of the OPSEC WG is intended to include the protection and >> secure operation of the forwarding, control and management planes. >> >> Documentation of best common practices, revision of existing >> operational security practices documents and proposals for new >> approaches to operational challenges are in scope. >> >> Method: >> >> It is expected that the work product of the working group will fall >> into the category of best current practices documents. Taxonomy or >> problem statement documents may provide a basis for best current >> practices documents. >> >> Best Current Practices Document >> >> For each topic addressed, a document will be produced that attempts >> to capture current practices related to secure operation. This will >> be primarily based on operational experience. Each entry will list: >> >> * threats addressed, >> * current practices for addressing the threat, >> * protocols, tools and technologies extant at the time of writing >> that are used to address the threat, >> * the possibility that a solution does not exist within existing >> tools or technologies. >> >> Taxonomy and Problem Statement Documents >> >> A document which attempts to describe the scope of particular >> operational security challenge or problem space without necessarily >> coming to a conclusion or proposing a solution. Such a document >> might be a precursor to a best common practices document. >> >> While the principal input of the Working Group are operational >> experience and needs, the output should be directed both to provide >> guidance to the operators community as well as to Working Groups >> that develop protocols or the community of protocol developers at >> large, as well as to the implementers of these protocols. >> >> Non-Goals: >> >> The Operations security working group is not the place to do new >> protocols or requirements documents. >> >> New protocol development or requirements work should be addressed >> in a working group chartered in the appropriate area or as >> individual submissions. The OPSEC WG may take on documents related >> to the practices of using such work. >> >> Goals and Milestones: >> >> July 2008 Complete charter > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 21 22:38:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FD93A6883; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:38:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A988C3A6883 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:38:36 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HGrXsttLZd3Z for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netcore.fi (eunet-gw.ipv6.netcore.fi [IPv6:2001:670:86:3001::1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70EBE3A67AA for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6M5d4ni007761; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:39:04 +0300 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id m6M5d3HM007757; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:39:04 +0300 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:39:03 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Savola To: Joel Jaeggli In-Reply-To: <487BD47B.8070004@bogus.com> Message-ID: References: <487BD47B.8070004@bogus.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LRH 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/7771/Tue Jul 22 00:09:37 2008 on otso.netcore.fi X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: opsec wg mailing list Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Agenda Items for 72 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > 1. rechartering status > > 2. briefly discuss and collect feedback for fernando on > draft-gont-opsec-icmp-filtering-00 > > 3. I've asked the SAVI folks to dicuss the direction of their efforts, > now that it's turned into a working group that seems more important > than ever. > > Is there anything else that should be on the table, bearing in mind that we > only have an hour so there's room for more but not dramatically so? We could try to have a discussion (10-15m) on draft-savola-rtgwg-backbone-attacks-03 -- whether that is worth pursuing and if so, what would be the direction for that effort. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 22 02:11:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AC53A69D4; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:11:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DB43A69D4 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:11:18 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8g0XWZYCpkp for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4AA3A69BB for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.6.56] ([83.70.179.196]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6M9BrAv087510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:11:55 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <4885A453.4080006@bogus.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:11:47 -0700 From: Joel Jaeggli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pekka Savola References: <487BD47B.8070004@bogus.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/7776/Tue Jul 22 06:09:22 2008 on nagasaki.bogus.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: opsec wg mailing list Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Agenda Items for 72 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Pekka Savola wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> 1. rechartering status >> >> 2. briefly discuss and collect feedback for fernando on >> draft-gont-opsec-icmp-filtering-00 >> >> 3. I've asked the SAVI folks to dicuss the direction of their efforts, >> now that it's turned into a working group that seems more important >> than ever. >> >> Is there anything else that should be on the table, bearing in mind >> that we only have an hour so there's room for more but not >> dramatically so? > > We could try to have a discussion (10-15m) on > draft-savola-rtgwg-backbone-attacks-03 -- whether that is worth pursuing > and if so, what would be the direction for that effort. good idea. thanks! joel _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 24 18:18:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357853A6837; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F5C28C10B for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HBAgt3Y34wwy for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:18:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7193A6837 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 7A5EA26866A; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:18:33 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.1.102] (division.aa.arbor.net [152.160.38.65]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; for opsec@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:18:33 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) Message-Id: <162F0E3D-1C46-4856-ACBF-798264F91C37@tcb.net> From: Danny McPherson To: opsec wg mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:18:32 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Subject: [OPSEC] 2008 Infrastructure Security Survey X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Folks, The 2008 Infrastructure Security Survey is up and available for input. You can register to complete the survey at this URL: I've added many questions this time from past participants of the survey, this should be evidenced throughout. Thanks to all those that reviewed and provided questions explicitly for this edition. The survey response window will be ~2 weeks. We hope to make the results available by the end of September at the latest. Also, please recall that NO personally (or organizationally) identifiable information will be shared in any manner. The 2007 edition of the survey is available here: Or on the Arbor web site (reg required): Thanks in advance for your participation! -danny _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 30 08:06:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038D03A6A13; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:06:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB533A68C7 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:06:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bbt4odC9BTuZ for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu (mail.ki.iif.hu [IPv6:2001:738:0:411::241]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518153A6A13 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA50984B4B for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:06:54 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id S+SXu4-7RA2G for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:06:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 162D384B4D; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:06:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150D784AAA for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:06:52 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:06:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: opsec@ietf.org Message-ID: <20080730164108.J85867@mignon.ki.iif.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSEC] comment for draft-gont-opsec-icmp-filtering-00.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Dear All, I would recommend for the authors of draft-gont-opsec-icmp-filtering-00.txt to look at RFC 4890 "Recommendations for Filtering ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls" Regards, Janos Mohacsi Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F 4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 30 10:33:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE713A6C3D; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:33:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94D13A6C3B for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:33:47 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XMN8uumQwB3r for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:33:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monster.hopcount.ca (monster.hopcount.ca [199.212.90.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914623A6C3D for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:33:44 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=monster; d=ca.afilias.info; h=Received:Message-Id:From:To:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:X-Mailer; b=kN3cv/UQgnmJ8+/7Fe01MuahYs9NAKUJ/npGC2N8Hc8fgNSTzFvMcx5uFkdD+ilHunPIhNtxj2KKQfs09Rup4KU37bzRQATT5DGd0h3ykNdPBQ4uWLu82fQ6nS2xiISM; Received: from [130.129.23.132] by monster.hopcount.ca with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1KOFXV-000OqC-At for opsec@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:32:42 +0000 Message-Id: <61BF1842-7DC2-49EA-9DE5-AE62AE2CED82@ca.afilias.info> From: Joe Abley To: opsec@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-3-761274259 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:32:39 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Subject: [OPSEC] draft minutes for opsec meeting today X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-3-761274259 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Please see attached. Please send comments/corrections to the list, or to me directly. Joe --Apple-Mail-3-761274259 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=opsec-ietf72-1.txt Content-Type: text/plain; x-unix-mode=0644; name="opsec-ietf72-1.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Minutes of the OPSEC meeting IETF 72, Dublin, Ireland 2008-07-30 1510 UTC+1 Note-taker: jabley Jabber proxy: jabley (no jabber scribe) The meeting opened at 1518 UTC+1. 1. Joel Jaeggli, OPSEC WG Joel Gaeggli presented on the working group rechartering and document status. There is fatigue on existing milestones, and abandonment with recharter is a more pragmatic way forward than closing the working group and chartering a new one. The new charter has passed working group last call and has been sent to the IESG. Milestones on the new charter are a bit thin. We want to keep the working group to bring problems from the network operations space into. ron bonica: charter has changed -- no longer to do with requirements for vendors, now to do with BCP for operators. Old documents should be allowed to wither on the vine. An alternative might be to fold this work into OPSAWG. dan romanescu: conscious decision to keep opsec separate from opsawg in order to separate and maintain focus on the security aspects There are two new potential work items from Warren Kumari on blackhole communities. danny mcpherson: comment on warren's blackhole draft; many isps use different communities for different kinds of blackholes, different places to drop packets, etc Draft-gony-opsec-icmp-filtering is a draft which has seen positive discussion on the mailing list. mohacsi janos: similar draft for v6 icmp fltering, around rfc 4890. I think the author should consider looking at this draft. There was a strong hum for adopting draft-gony-opsec-icmp-filtering as a working group document. There was no hum in dissent. The author was encouraged to resubmit the draft as an opsec working group document. 2. SAVI Overview, Christian Vogt Christian Vogt provided an overview of the problem space and approach for work starting in the SAVI working group. There was no discussion from the floor. 3. draft-savola-rtgwg-backbone-attacks-03, Pekka Savola Pekka Savola provided a brief history of this draft. merike kaeo: totally support this work, and htink it would be perfect as an operational document joel jaeggli: no hat, read this document the first time around, a little while ago, think it is a really useful document, some freshening required, but appropriate under our new charter christian vogt: if not in opsec, where else? pekka: if not in opsec, probably not in ietf christian: I support it to be published in this group ron bonica: thumbs up joel: will need to seek consensus on list lucy lynch: I have read it a while ago, read it again this this morning, some of this is a moving target; may require regular refreshment joel: I wouldn't imagine it being more than informational. will require routine updates or an understanding that like fish security recommendations do start to smell bad after a while. william dixon: section 3.5 refers to ipsec and ike that is just really commentary, and I am not sure what to conclude from it. example of commentary. draft needs some work to provide concrete recommendations of work joel: also some things that require conclusions michael behring: good work, stuff that people should read, find difficult that the purpose is a bit of threat, a bit of countermeasures. would be good to have a clearer idea of what the goal of the document is. joe abley: seems to me there is room in the charter for informational travelogues on security as well as BCPs. merike: people always tell me what to do, but not why. I like pekka's doc because it describes the problems as well as the absence of silver bullets where appropriate pekka: intent: if it's 15 pages or more, if it's too long. some attack or countermeasure requires mengthy description, probably referred somewhere else. so tried to be concise. michael: I really like that. I also see merike's point. the danger is that you take the countermeasures out and just leave the list, which means the list needs to be more concise. joel: should close it here so we can get the remaining presentations in. when we look for consensus on the list, document might benefit from additional authors. people who like the document should consider helping out with it. 4. draft-ietf-rpsec-bgp-session-sec-req-01, Michael Behring Michael Behring gave an overview of the structure of this document, which was previously a work item in the RPSEG working group. joel: seems likely that opsec people would have things to say about this ron: this does give value, think it's appropriate merike: think work is appropriate, but was involved in rpsec and don't think there are enough people in this group that understand enough bgp potentially to come up with requirements. joel: agree with merike on that; control plane security is one element of that but the protocol itself is the other piece and I think that's slightly less core here pekka: observation here is proposed charter, bcp problem statements, taxonomies, etc. requirements explicitly out of scope. sandy murphy: I recall reading very long ago versions of your draft and versions of pekka' sdraft, and saw in your outline some items that I thought might also be included in pekka's. infrastructure hiding, for example? michael: yeah, but really compeltely different scope. lucy: to follow up on what joel was saying, cross-area review and strong support that document should continue joe: advice to operators on how to secure routers would be a clearer fit for the charter joel: maybe an additional document michael: I will continue in the routing area, and maybe return here with a BCP. 5. Any Other Business There was no other business. 6. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 1620 UTC+1. --Apple-Mail-3-761274259 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Apple-Mail-3-761274259 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec --Apple-Mail-3-761274259-- From opsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 30 10:48:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec-archive@optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-opsec-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C584928C3BC; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9826828C3B4 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:48:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5pwJZLcHoja2 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net (smtp1.xmundo.net [201.216.232.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF4C28C3B2 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8A16B6868; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:48:24 -0300 (ART) Received: from notebook.gont.com.ar (201-254-30-115.speedy.com.ar [201.254.30.115] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6UHmBm1000969; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:48:13 -0300 Message-Id: <200807301748.m6UHmBm1000969@venus.xmundo.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:43:33 -0300 To: Joe Abley , opsec@ietf.org From: Fernando Gont In-Reply-To: <61BF1842-7DC2-49EA-9DE5-AE62AE2CED82@ca.afilias.info> References: <61BF1842-7DC2-49EA-9DE5-AE62AE2CED82@ca.afilias.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:48:24 -0300 (ART) Subject: Re: [OPSEC] draft minutes for opsec meeting today X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: opsec-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: opsec-bounces@ietf.org At 02:32 p.m. 30/07/2008, Joe Abley wrote: >Please see attached. Please send comments/corrections to the list, or >to me directly. In a number of places the minutes say "Draft-gony-opsec-icmp-filtering" instead of "Draft-gont-opsec-icmp-filtering" (that is, my surname is "gont", and not "gony"). Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec