From pekkas at netcore.fi Wed Jun 6 16:22:12 2007 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:22:12 +0300 (EEST) Subject: [SAVA] Need your input: draft-sava-problem-statement-01 In-Reply-To: <20070529.001902.694.1487366@webmail29.lax.untd.com> References: <20070529.001902.694.1487366@webmail29.lax.untd.com> Message-ID: Hi Fergie, On Tue, 29 May 2007, Fergie wrote: > Okay, so I'm tired and cranky, but here's a rough cut of the > new problem statement. > > PLEASE send comments ASAP so that we can get this thing re-submitted > this week, and begin to re-craft the framework draft. I took a quick look at this and I must admit I was a little disappointed because there was very little "problem statement" in the draft, i.e., anything that would help the user to justify that a problem exists and should be solved. Further, this revision also removes all the detail that was included in the previous version. Basically what seems to be left is: generic text on source spoofing or lack thereof (lots of it written in a way that I think is a mischaracterization) and division of the problem into three subcomponents (which were not more clearly defined). In order to proceed with generic SAVA approach, I believe we need to have a problem statement (which probably might need have to include the "core" of the framework, i.e., division of problems into smaller pieces) that's more detailed. If the solution landscape is split into smaller pieces, it's also necessary to more clearly define what we mean by those pieces (e.g., does first-hop include intra-subnet spoofing prevention or is LAN-interface ingress filtering sufficient). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From miw at juniper.net Wed Jun 6 18:49:04 2007 From: miw at juniper.net (Mark Williams) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:49:04 +0800 Subject: [SAVA] Please comment: Framework Draft - latest version Message-ID: <46669120.20202@juniper.net> Here is a edited/rewritten version of the SAVA framework draft. Things done: * Harmonise with most recent version of the problem statement * Clean up some definitions * Remove solution-specific texts which belong in solution drafts * Fix up the reference section * etc.... Still some empty or sparse sections that need work, but I think what is there is ready to be shot at, so I put it out for your review. cheers, Mark -- "Product roadmap and/or product discussion in this email set forth Juniper Networks' current intention and is subject to change at any time without notice. No purchases are contingent upon Juniper Networks delivering any feature or functionality expressed or implied in this roadmap or product discussion." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Williams Juniper Networks Liaison Beijing Office Academic Networking Sector Tel: +86 10 6528 8800 x16032 Asia Pacific FAX: +61 7 3251 0155 miw at juniper.net Cell: +86 1370-111-4749 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: draft-wu-sava-framework-01.txt Url: http://mail.nrc.tsinghua.edu.cn/pipermail/sava/attachments/20070606/3fa648c1/attachment-0001.txt From miw at juniper.net Mon Jun 11 01:29:59 2007 From: miw at juniper.net (Mark Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:29:59 +0800 Subject: [SAVA] For Comment: Two new first-hop SAVA drafts Message-ID: <466C3517.7080406@juniper.net> Folks, two drafts for the SAVA first-hop local subnet case, to go along with Fred's simple-sava draft. cheers, Mark -- "Product roadmap and/or product discussion in this email set forth Juniper Networks' current intention and is subject to change at any time without notice. No purchases are contingent upon Juniper Networks delivering any feature or functionality expressed or implied in this roadmap or product discussion." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Williams Juniper Networks Liaison Beijing Office Academic Networking Sector Tel: +86 10 6528 8800 x16032 Asia Pacific FAX: +61 7 3251 0155 miw at juniper.net Cell: +86 1370-111-4749 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: draft-sava-solution-ipv6-edge-network-signature-00.txt Url: http://mail.nrc.tsinghua.edu.cn/pipermail/sava/attachments/20070611/85957a29/attachment-0002.txt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: draft-wu-sava-solution-firsthop-eap00.txt Url: http://mail.nrc.tsinghua.edu.cn/pipermail/sava/attachments/20070611/85957a29/attachment-0003.txt From jari.arkko at piuha.net Fri Jun 22 15:42:04 2007 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:42:04 +0300 Subject: [SAVA] Next steps regarding SAVA Message-ID: <467B7D4C.7050807@piuha.net> Hi all, The situation with the SAVA BOF proposal is that we will have time in the int-area open meeting to talk about this, but I did not schedule the 2nd BOF this time because I felt that it is too early for our second attempt. I think we have made significant progress from Prague, however, as well as some recent activity in terms of drafts. I believe we can have a successful result of this activity. The progress is mainly in terms of being able to divide the problem space into manageable pieces, and emerging interest from a number of people for some of those pieces. Some of the next steps I would like to see: 1. Focus the first step of the effort on a sub-problem of the entire problem space. Based on my discussion with a number of people, the local subnet seems like something where several different groups have an interest in. See also item 2. I realize that this part is not the most technically or scientifically interesting part. Sometimes we have to work on one thing first first, however -- the rest can follow as a next step. 2. Ensure that the core ideas have interest from a number of teams. I see positive signs that we can get a few key people interested if the scope is defined appropriately. 3. Work on additional and updated drafts (and submit them -- I see more drafts personally than what has been sent on the list, and even less has been submitted to the IETF). I think we need - an updated framework - an updated problem definition document (this and the previous one have to have enough details, particularly under the topic of the reduced scope) 4. Multiple solution drafts fitting the reduced scope topic. For instance, if we are talking about the local subnet problem, we could have drafts about the Cernet switch based solution, maybe Fred Baker's CGA based solution, DHCP-based solution, something that works for IPv6 stateless address autoconfig, solutions for specific access technology, etc. 5. Presentation for int-area The presentation should have material about the proposed new scope and pointers to ideas for solutions. The main goal of the presentation is to check whether the new direction is in line with what the rest of the IETF thinks is right, and to solicit people to work on the problem. 6. Team meetings. We need to get the people interested on this to talk to each other on a number of occasions. Paul, can we set up a conference call between the key persons sometime in the next two weeks to talk about this plan and the next steps? In IETF-69, we should reserve time so that the people interested in this can progress the work (perhaps in a bar). There may also be a need to talk after IETF-69, and when more people/drafts are in place. Jari