From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 14 12:48:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsMLE-0008DM-25; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:47:56 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IsMLC-0008Ci-QW for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:47:54 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsMLC-0008CW-Bi for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:47:54 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsMLB-0006SU-UI for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:47:54 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,417,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="157734538" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2007 18:47:37 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lAEHlbVF006518; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:47:37 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lAEHlU6l008928; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:47:30 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.72]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:47:30 +0100 Received: from mbehring-wxp.cisco.com ([10.61.66.130]) by xfe-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:47:30 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:47:27 +0100 To: Stephen Kent , Russ White From: "Michael H. Behringer" Subject: Re: [RPSEC] [Fwd: Fwd: draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt] In-Reply-To: References: <46CB484F.6070105@cisco.com> <46CD367F.7030308@isi.edu> <46CD9CDA.4030308@juniper.net> <46CD9DF7.3000503@isi.edu> <46CDF463.4080305@cisco.com> <46CDF622.10701@isi.edu> <46CDFB67.8000706@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2007 17:47:30.0246 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D8EAE60:01C826E6] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15544.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.888400-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2024; t=1195062457; x=1195926457; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mbehring@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Michael=20H.=20Behringer=22=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[RPSEC]=20[Fwd=3A=20Fwd=3A=0A=20=20draft-behringer-bg p-session-sec-req-02.txt] |Sender:=20; bh=AEAqem4QOJFSyFJUAYnZN3r0ihS7bLkfnhOjTRV+xgQ=; b=lRYo5h2ZUjo2EkHSLcdjQtayNmcApLKQgpkObInwHnhKfpsTj3urzNVu5MptSuQyOuXTGED5 s9SADUOxOG5R5OA8sCvtGRvOlHdxDvRGZSRlMU05PeCINJpWssvLw3+D; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=mbehring@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, Joe Touch X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Picking up on this old thread, and trying to figure out what to do next.=20 My understanding, re-reading the thread, is that the document is in scope of= the WG, under the condition that pure transport layer issues are handled by= referring to the Bellovin draft.=20 (Once we have defined that the subject is in scope for the WG, then there is= of course a lot more work to be done - thanks for the feedback received).= =20 Is this correct? Do we have a consensus on this?=20 Michael At 14:52 24/08/2007, Stephen Kent wrote: >At 5:25 PM -0400 8/23/07, Russ White wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >> >>>> In general, though, a lot of folks I've talked to thought it was a >>>> good idea for the routing community to provide input into the docs >>>> being worked on in the Transport area. >>> >>> I agree entirely; it might be useful to have this document focus on >>> non-transport issues, and cite the other document as addressing >>> those, rather than having a separate document addressing BGP >>> transport requirements. >> >>Two questions: >> >>1. What does the rest of the WG think about this? >> >>> I.e., the best place to add BGP-specific transport requirements would >>> be in Bellovin's doc, rather than a separate doc from a separate WG. >>This is specifically what I'm not certain about.... Should the TCPM docs >>contain generic transport related requirements, or generic requirements? > >I think having a routing-specific security requirements document for= point-to-point communication is useful, and a reasonable adjunct to the= work being done in the Transport area. > >>2. What would you change to make the doc acceptable, if this is the >>direction to go? > >I've suggested a number of edits that I think would yield a better= document. > >Steve > > > >_______________________________________________ >RPSEC mailing list >RPSEC@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec >=B5)=CE=F0%=8FOn=82A1=DF _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 14 13:35:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsN5K-0006pH-OG; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:35:34 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IsN5J-0006kl-39 for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:35:33 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsN5I-0006kW-PU for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:35:32 -0500 Received: from ns1.tislabs.com ([192.94.214.100] helo=nutshell.tislabs.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsN5E-0000fb-1o for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:35:32 -0500 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id lAEIWoRA014671 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from pecan.tislabs.com(10.66.1.30) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAA6JaqAC; Wed, 14 Nov 07 13:31:59 -0500 Received: by pecan.tislabs.com (Postfix, from userid 2005) id 687A63F41E; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:32:22 -0500 (EST) To: rpsec@ietf.org Message-Id: <20071114183222.687A63F41E@pecan.tislabs.com> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:32:22 -0500 (EST) From: sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy) X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: sandy@tislabs.com Subject: [RPSEC] a new (final, god be willing) version of BGP Sec Rqmt? X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org There was some discussion at the last meeting about some needed changes in the BGP Sec Rqmt. I'm anxious (both as sidr chair and personally as wg member) to see this draft get wglc so we can proceed. I think comments at the mike indicated some consensus as to the changes to be made. I'm willing to suggest text if that would be helpful. Posting by Monday would get it published from the secretariat, and I think that's doable. --Sandy _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Wed Nov 14 14:10:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsNdO-0003LI-Tp; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:10:46 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IsNdO-0003IZ-C0 for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:10:46 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsNdO-0003IR-1F for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:10:46 -0500 Received: from mint.apnic.net ([202.12.29.58]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IsNdN-00075z-6D for rpsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:10:45 -0500 Received: from [58.163.5.12] (unknown [58.163.5.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mint.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C04D5F2D; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:10:40 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <473B48B3.2040808@apnic.net> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:12:51 +1100 From: Geoff Huston User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael H. Behringer" Subject: Re: [RPSEC] [Fwd: Fwd: draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt] References: <46CB484F.6070105@cisco.com> <46CD367F.7030308@isi.edu> <46CD9CDA.4030308@juniper.net> <46CD9DF7.3000503@isi.edu> <46CDF463.4080305@cisco.com> <46CDF622.10701@isi.edu> <46CDFB67.8000706@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, Joe Touch , Stephen Kent , Russ White X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org That was my impression as well (that the document falls into the scope=20 of the WG, under the condition you noted) Geoff Michael H. Behringer wrote: > Picking up on this old thread, and trying to figure out what to do next= .=20 >=20 > My understanding, re-reading the thread, is that the document is in sco= pe of the WG, under the condition that pure transport layer issues are ha= ndled by referring to the Bellovin draft.=20 >=20 > (Once we have defined that the subject is in scope for the WG, then the= re is of course a lot more work to be done - thanks for the feedback rece= ived).=20 >=20 > Is this correct? Do we have a consensus on this?=20 >=20 > Michael >=20 > At 14:52 24/08/2007, Stephen Kent wrote: >> At 5:25 PM -0400 8/23/07, Russ White wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> >>>>> In general, though, a lot of folks I've talked to thought it was a >>>>> good idea for the routing community to provide input into the docs >>>>> being worked on in the Transport area. >>>> I agree entirely; it might be useful to have this document focus on >>>> non-transport issues, and cite the other document as addressing >>>> those, rather than having a separate document addressing BGP >>>> transport requirements. >>> Two questions: >>> >>> 1. What does the rest of the WG think about this? >>> >>>> I.e., the best place to add BGP-specific transport requirements woul= d >>>> be in Bellovin's doc, rather than a separate doc from a separate WG= . >>> This is specifically what I'm not certain about.... Should the TCPM d= ocs >>> contain generic transport related requirements, or generic requiremen= ts? >> I think having a routing-specific security requirements document for p= oint-to-point communication is useful, and a reasonable adjunct to the wo= rk being done in the Transport area. >> >>> 2. What would you change to make the doc acceptable, if this is the >>> direction to go? >> I've suggested a number of edits that I think would yield a better doc= ument. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RPSEC mailing list >> RPSEC@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec >> =B5)=CE=F0%=8FOn=82A1=DF >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 19 11:03:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu95i-0001zv-Fz; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:03:18 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu95g-0001vv-Pu for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:03:16 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu95g-0001vl-Ev for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:03:16 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu95c-0004BF-Nm for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:03:16 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-8ubuntu1) with ESMTP id lAJG31uN008479; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:03:01 -0800 Received: (from ttauber@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lAJG30Kx008478; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:03:00 -0800 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:03:00 -0800 From: Tony Tauber To: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: [RPSEC] [Fwd: Fwd: draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt] Message-ID: <20071119160300.GB25911@1-4-5.net> References: <46CB484F.6070105@cisco.com> <46CD367F.7030308@isi.edu> <46CD9CDA.4030308@juniper.net> <46CD9DF7.3000503@isi.edu> <46CDF463.4080305@cisco.com> <46CDF622.10701@isi.edu> <46CDFB67.8000706@cisco.com> <473B48B3.2040808@apnic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <473B48B3.2040808@apnic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, Russ White , Stephen Kent , "Michael H. Behringer" , Joe Touch X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org OK, seems there's some consensus for adopting this draft as a WG work item. Please express any opposition in the next eight days (by COB 11/27). Thanks, Tony On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:12:51AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote: > That was my impression as well (that the document falls into the scope of > the WG, under the condition you noted) > > Geoff > > > Michael H. Behringer wrote: >> Picking up on this old thread, and trying to figure out what to do next. >> My understanding, re-reading the thread, is that the document is in scope >> of the WG, under the condition that pure transport layer issues are >> handled by referring to the Bellovin draft. (Once we have defined that the >> subject is in scope for the WG, then there is of course a lot more work to >> be done - thanks for the feedback received). Is this correct? Do we have a >> consensus on this? Michael >> At 14:52 24/08/2007, Stephen Kent wrote: >>> At 5:25 PM -0400 8/23/07, Russ White wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> >>>>>> In general, though, a lot of folks I've talked to thought it was a >>>>>> good idea for the routing community to provide input into the docs >>>>>> being worked on in the Transport area. >>>>> I agree entirely; it might be useful to have this document focus on >>>>> non-transport issues, and cite the other document as addressing >>>>> those, rather than having a separate document addressing BGP >>>>> transport requirements. >>>> Two questions: >>>> >>>> 1. What does the rest of the WG think about this? >>>> >>>>> I.e., the best place to add BGP-specific transport requirements would >>>>> be in Bellovin's doc, rather than a separate doc from a separate WG. >>>> This is specifically what I'm not certain about.... Should the TCPM docs >>>> contain generic transport related requirements, or generic requirements? >>> I think having a routing-specific security requirements document for >>> point-to-point communication is useful, and a reasonable adjunct to the >>> work being done in the Transport area. >>> >>>> 2. What would you change to make the doc acceptable, if this is the >>>> direction to go? >>> I've suggested a number of edits that I think would yield a better >>> document. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RPSEC mailing list >>> RPSEC@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec >>> ?)??%?On?A1? >> _______________________________________________ >> RPSEC mailing list >> RPSEC@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 19 11:10:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu9CW-0001DM-9L; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:10:20 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu9CU-00016K-5Y for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:10:18 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu9CT-000147-4f for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:10:17 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu9CQ-0004jF-He for rpsec@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:10:17 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-8ubuntu1) with ESMTP id lAJGADZ6008614; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:10:13 -0800 Received: (from ttauber@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lAJGADW1008613; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:10:13 -0800 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:10:13 -0800 From: Tony Tauber To: Sandy Murphy Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Agenda for December IETF Message-ID: <20071119161013.GC25911@1-4-5.net> References: <46FD6C07.3000200@cisco.com> <20070928213555.B86853F470@pecan.tislabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070928213555.B86853F470@pecan.tislabs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, riw@cisco.com X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Yes, Sandy, there is a sanity clause (c.f. the Marx Brothers) and the new (hopefully final) revision of the BGP Security Requirements doc has been submitted and should be posted soon. If there is nothing to go on a meeting agenda, that's fine. We can easily cancel the slot. Please send any agenda items within the week. If there are none, RPSEC won't meet at IETF 70. Thanks, Tony On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 05:35:55PM -0400, Sandy Murphy wrote: > >I think we should go last call on this, but Tony said he some minor > >editing to go through before we did. > > Yes, there was editing called for at the last IETF. > > But editing needed is not the same as work to do at a meeting. > > I'm still hopeful that there is hope of hope. > > --Sandy > > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Mon Nov 19 15:44:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuDTN-0006Rr-2M; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:44:01 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuDTM-0006PQ-79 for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:44:00 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuDTL-0006PH-Rm; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:43:59 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuDTL-0001fC-Fb; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:43:59 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664C9175BF; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuD1J-0003gg-T7; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:15:01 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:15:01 -0500 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: [RPSEC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Protocol Security Requirements Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP Security Requirements Author(s) : B. Christian, T. Tauber Filename : draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2007-11-19 The security of BGP, the Border Gateway Protocol, is critical to the proper operation of large-scale internetworks, both public and private. While securing the information transmitted between two BGP speakers is a relatively easy technical matter, securing BGP, as a routing system, is more complex. This document describes a set of requirements for securing BGP, including communications between BGP speakers, and the routing information carried within BGP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-19144937.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-19144937.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec --NextPart-- From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Sat Nov 24 06:36:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IvtIv-0007ub-0B; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:36:09 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IvtIt-0007u5-DU for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:36:07 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IvtIt-0007tx-1p; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:36:07 -0500 Received: from [202.99.23.227] (helo=people.com.cn) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IvtIs-0001Ef-1u; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:36:06 -0500 Received: from people.com.cn([127.0.0.1]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jm814748155d; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:49:03 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jm99474220f2; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:00:06 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id AISP action; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:00:06 +0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuDTP-0006Ts-IX; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:44:03 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuDTL-0006PH-Rm; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:43:59 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuDTL-0001fC-Fb; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:43:59 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664C9175BF; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuD1J-0003gg-T7; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:15:01 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:15:01 -0500 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org X-Auto-Forward: jaglee@people.com.cn jag@kw.com.cn X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Cc: rpsec@ietf.org Subject: [RPSEC] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Routing Protocol Security Requirements Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP Security Requirements Author(s) : B. Christian, T. Tauber Filename : draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2007-11-19 The security of BGP, the Border Gateway Protocol, is critical to the proper operation of large-scale internetworks, both public and private. While securing the information transmitted between two BGP speakers is a relatively easy technical matter, securing BGP, as a routing system, is more complex. This document describes a set of requirements for securing BGP, including communications between BGP speakers, and the routing information carried within BGP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-19144937.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-rpsec-bgpsecrec-09.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-19144937.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec --NextPart-- From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 29 10:34:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlPJ-0005jM-EO; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:34:29 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlPI-0005iG-3y for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:34:28 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlPH-0005i4-P0 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:34:27 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlPH-0000br-26 for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:34:27 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id lATFYB9G026104; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:34:11 -0800 Received: (from ttauber@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id lATFYBea026103; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:34:11 -0800 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:34:11 -0800 From: Tony Tauber To: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: [RPSEC] [Fwd: Fwd: draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt] Message-ID: <20071129153410.GE2610@1-4-5.net> References: <46CD367F.7030308@isi.edu> <46CD9CDA.4030308@juniper.net> <46CD9DF7.3000503@isi.edu> <46CDF463.4080305@cisco.com> <46CDF622.10701@isi.edu> <46CDFB67.8000706@cisco.com> <473B48B3.2040808@apnic.net> <20071119160300.GB25911@1-4-5.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071119160300.GB25911@1-4-5.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, Joe Touch , Stephen Kent , "Michael H. Behringer" , Russ White X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Ok, folks, the objection timer has run out so we can consider draft-behringer-bgp-session-sec-req-02.txt now to be an RPSEC WG work item. Thanks to Michael and we look forward to the next revision! Tony On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 08:03:00AM -0800, Tony Tauber wrote: > OK, seems there's some consensus for adopting this draft as a WG > work item. Please express any opposition in the next eight days > (by COB 11/27). > > Thanks, > > Tony > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:12:51AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote: > > That was my impression as well (that the document falls into the scope of > > the WG, under the condition you noted) > > > > Geoff > > > > > > Michael H. Behringer wrote: > >> Picking up on this old thread, and trying to figure out what to do next. > >> My understanding, re-reading the thread, is that the document is in scope > >> of the WG, under the condition that pure transport layer issues are > >> handled by referring to the Bellovin draft. (Once we have defined that the > >> subject is in scope for the WG, then there is of course a lot more work to > >> be done - thanks for the feedback received). Is this correct? Do we have a > >> consensus on this? Michael > >> At 14:52 24/08/2007, Stephen Kent wrote: > >>> At 5:25 PM -0400 8/23/07, Russ White wrote: > >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>>> Hash: SHA1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> In general, though, a lot of folks I've talked to thought it was a > >>>>>> good idea for the routing community to provide input into the docs > >>>>>> being worked on in the Transport area. > >>>>> I agree entirely; it might be useful to have this document focus on > >>>>> non-transport issues, and cite the other document as addressing > >>>>> those, rather than having a separate document addressing BGP > >>>>> transport requirements. > >>>> Two questions: > >>>> > >>>> 1. What does the rest of the WG think about this? > >>>> > >>>>> I.e., the best place to add BGP-specific transport requirements would > >>>>> be in Bellovin's doc, rather than a separate doc from a separate WG. > >>>> This is specifically what I'm not certain about.... Should the TCPM docs > >>>> contain generic transport related requirements, or generic requirements? > >>> I think having a routing-specific security requirements document for > >>> point-to-point communication is useful, and a reasonable adjunct to the > >>> work being done in the Transport area. > >>> > >>>> 2. What would you change to make the doc acceptable, if this is the > >>>> direction to go? > >>> I've suggested a number of edits that I think would yield a better > >>> document. > >>> > >>> Steve > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> RPSEC mailing list > >>> RPSEC@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > >>> ?)??%?On?A1? > >> _______________________________________________ > >> RPSEC mailing list > >> RPSEC@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RPSEC mailing list > > RPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec From rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Thu Nov 29 10:35:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlQR-0006cE-Oc; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:35:39 -0500 Received: from rpsec by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlQQ-0006bz-En for rpsec-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:35:38 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlQQ-0006br-4i for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:35:38 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxlQP-0000rd-JW for rpsec@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:35:38 -0500 Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id lATFZYhU026166; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:35:34 -0800 Received: (from ttauber@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id lATFZXoN026165; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:35:33 -0800 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:35:33 -0800 From: Tony Tauber To: Sandy Murphy Subject: Re: [RPSEC] Agenda for December IETF Message-ID: <20071129153533.GF2610@1-4-5.net> References: <46FD6C07.3000200@cisco.com> <20070928213555.B86853F470@pecan.tislabs.com> <20071119161013.GC25911@1-4-5.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071119161013.GC25911@1-4-5.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Cc: rpsec@ietf.org, riw@cisco.com X-BeenThere: rpsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Protocol Security Requirements List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: rpsec-bounces@ietf.org Since there have been no requests for Agenda timeslots and other work can be pursued appropriately on the mailing list, RPSEC will not be meeting at IETF 70 in Vancouver. Thanks, Tony On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 08:10:13AM -0800, Tony Tauber wrote: > Yes, Sandy, there is a sanity clause (c.f. the Marx Brothers) > and the new (hopefully final) revision of the BGP Security Requirements > doc has been submitted and should be posted soon. > > If there is nothing to go on a meeting agenda, that's fine. > We can easily cancel the slot. Please send any agenda items > within the week. If there are none, RPSEC won't meet at IETF 70. > > Thanks, > > Tony > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 05:35:55PM -0400, Sandy Murphy wrote: > > >I think we should go last call on this, but Tony said he some minor > > >editing to go through before we did. > > > > Yes, there was editing called for at the last IETF. > > > > But editing needed is not the same as work to do at a meeting. > > > > I'm still hopeful that there is hope of hope. > > > > --Sandy > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RPSEC mailing list > > RPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec > > > _______________________________________________ > RPSEC mailing list > RPSEC@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec _______________________________________________ RPSEC mailing list RPSEC@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec