From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Aug 5 10:36:55 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15461 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA06310 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06211; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06178 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gto-mailer1.bbn.com (cam-mailer1.bbn.com [128.33.0.36]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15355 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.89.88.34] (comsec.bbn.com [128.89.88.34]) by gto-mailer1.bbn.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02009; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: kent@po2.bbn.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046406C9BE@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.c a.us> References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046406C9BE@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.c a.us> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:25:23 -0400 To: "Michel Py" From: Stephen Kent Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Draft Status, from a protocol developer's angle. Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org At 5:55 PM -0700 7/26/02, Michel Py wrote: > > Stephen Kent >> So, to summarize, you admit to knowing nothing about crypto >> and little or nothing about the IETF standard protocol for IP >> layer security, but you are confident that nothing exists that >> can address MITM problems for your routing protocol. Is that >> about it? > >I'm not confident that it does not exist, I just haven't found. Can you >point me to something? > >Michel. > Absent a detailed description of the problem context and an agreed upon threat model, no. Steve _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Aug 5 10:36:56 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15469 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA06321 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:38:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06251; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA06217 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:35:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gto-mailer1.bbn.com (cam-mailer1.bbn.com [128.33.0.36]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15357 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [128.89.88.34] (comsec.bbn.com [128.89.88.34]) by gto-mailer1.bbn.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02016; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:35:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: kent@po2.bbn.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E218@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.c a.us> References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E218@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.c a.us> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:28:16 -0400 To: "Michel Py" From: Stephen Kent Subject: RE: [RPSEC] Draft Status, from a protocol developer's angle. Cc: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org At 12:10 PM -0700 7/27/02, Michel Py wrote: >Steve, > >>> Nevertheless, the bottom line still is: I'm doing my best, >>> but it might not be enough. > >> Stephen Kent wrote: >> Any maybe it's not good enough to become an IETF standard. > >This is not my primary goal. Let me give you a few examples about >"standards": >[precision: I do *not* work for Cisco] > >- EIGRP. I use it all the time, and there is no IETF equivalent. >- HSRP. I use it all the time, and switching to VRPP is not high on my >priority list. >- ISL: I am phasing it out in favor of 802.1q. Have any idea where >802.1q comes from? > >The IETF is not the only place where standards are developed. If this >workgroup produces unrealistic requirements that protocol developers >can't meet, protocol developers will either ignore the requirements >(which is possible, as it is very well understood that a routing >protocol can't please everyone), or take their work outside the IETF >(which is what I have done already, AAMOF). > >If this WG doesn't mind some advice, try not to get into the same schism >as multi6, which is deadlocked in non-consensual, impossible to meet >requirements. > >Michel. This is an IETF mailing list, working on security requirements for IETF standard routing protocols. Thus, irrespective of the examples you cite above, the context for our discussions is the IETF standards space. Steve _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From daemon@optimus.ietf.org Mon Aug 5 14:00:49 2002 Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24898 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:00:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA19108 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18358; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18328 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24679 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g75HuxW68392 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:57:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g75Huu168385 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:56:56 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@jhaas.nexthop.com) Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.3nb1/8.11.3) id g75Huud02637 for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:56:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:56:56 -0400 From: Jeffrey Haas To: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Draft Status.... Message-ID: <20020805135656.A2626@nexthop.com> References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E201@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.c <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E201@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.c a.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from kent@bbn.com on Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:14:44PM -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:14:44PM -0400, Stephen Kent wrote: > If we assume that man-in-the-middle attacks are a valid concern, then > the details of the underlying transport protocol probably do not > matter much, since we will require a crypto-security mechanism to > protect the traffic. It also is appropriate to document the ways in > which a routing protocol relies on the underlying transport protocol. > > I don't think that documenting vulnerabilities of otherwise > unprotected transport protocols is the best strategy for our work. As I had mentioned earlier, I would agree with this assessment. Secure the transport layer, document the dependencies of a given protcol on a given transport and then work on securing the protocol's actual payload. BGP currently has documents talking about securing it via TCP+MD5 and also via IPSec. What about the other protocols? Is someone willing to gather a list of the protocols we are concerned with and document their transport security issues? > Steve -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Wed Aug 28 17:07:28 2002 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19174 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:07:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g7SL8Yd22663 for rpsec-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:08:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SL8Yo22660 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:08:34 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19162 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:06:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7SL7Do22433; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 17:07:16 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7RJGho28213 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:16:43 -0400 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06546 for <1timer>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200208271844.OAA06546@ietf.org> From: Phil Roberts To: IETF WG Participants: ; Subject: [RPSEC] Nomcom call for volunteers Sender: rpsec-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: rpsec-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:44:44 -0400 The members of the IESG and IAB and the IETF chair are selected by a nominations committee made up of volunteers from the IETF community. The nominations committee is now in the process of being formed and volunteers are being accepted until Sep 6. Please see (http://www.ietf.org/nomcom/msg19765.html) for information if you are interested in volunteering to be on the nominations committee. _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec