From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jul 7 04:57:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 896541F0C37; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00QCZUJa8Pcg; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C0B21F85C5; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 04:57:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110707115717.18266.28581.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:57:17 -0700 Cc: savi@ietf.org Subject: [savi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-10.txt X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:57:17 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Source Address Validation Improvement= s Working Group of the IETF. Title : SAVI Solution for DHCP Author(s) : Jun Bi Jianping Wu Guang Yao Jun Bi Fred Baker Filename : draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-10.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2011-07-07 This document specifies the procedure for creating bindings between a DHCPv4 [RFC2131]/DHCPv6 [RFC3315] assigned source IP address and a binding anchor [I-D.ietf-savi-framework] on SAVI (Source Address Validation Improvements) device. The bindings can be used to filter packets generated on the local link with forged source IP address. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-10.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-10.txt From jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com Thu Jul 7 05:45:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EB321F87E2; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:45:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pE8nTalcavNU; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6491621F87DD; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so425458gwb.31 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 05:45:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=j4AaOfV5fDZHcgdLNEl7Ym5wdWEFjVW//UHqEwPdCvQ=; b=AjPDSl1wUR0nXlBXVZ1w9prMZ2EDDwwmWaGW+MtSkosUkRGBtXAG0KylsITAoJVrvw zvEEzU/5EAZpeY7GQc7yiV0h9pi7ipzePBBMuJ4t1C8cCB4jgERXdDb7DmtVguf5BJGG D5Ws2Hzu/nmWEmPyy+K1LURnFZdtCTnBO900c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.79.34 with SMTP id h22mr895553yhe.180.1310042736696; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 05:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.182.9 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 05:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:45:36 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jean-Michel Combes To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: SAVI Mailing List , savi-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [savi] Publication request for "SAVI Solution for DHCP" (draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-10) X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:45:38 -0000 Dear Secretary, This is a request to publish draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-10 as a Standard track RFC. Please find below the I-D write-up. Thanks in advance. Best regards. JMC. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com) is the Document Shepherd, savi WG co-chair. He has done a review on the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had adequate reviews by key WG members. The document shepherd does not have any concerns regarding the depth or breadth of the reviews received. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? As this document specifies a new security mechanism that could impact legitimate traffic, a review from the Security Directorate should be done. As this document specifies a DHCP based mechanism, a review from dhc WG members may be done. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. Based on the previous worries from the IESG on other SAVI documents about privacy issues (i.e. logging) and residential threats, a thorough review of the document has been done concerning these topics. No IPR disclosure related to this document has been filed. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is savi WG consensus behind the document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? The document shepherd has personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits. The document does not need MIB doctor review. The document does not contain any media and URI types. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References are split into normative and informative sections. There are no normative references that are downward references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This document has an IANA considerations section and no IANA considerations that need to be taken care of. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There are no such sections. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This memo specifies the procedure for creating bindings between a DHCPv4/DHCPv6 assigned source IP address and a binding anchor on SAVI (Source Address Validation Improvements) device. The bindings can be used to filter packets generated on the local link with forged source IP address. Working Group Summary The normal WG process was followed. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus. Document Quality The document was thoroughly reviewed by Christian Vogt, Joel M. Halpern, Eric Levy-Abegnoli, Alberto Garcia and Jean-Michel Combes. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jul 26 04:56:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5BC21F8C5F; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:56:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kbuNdCyiCQfq; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A684221F8BD4; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:56:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.56 Message-ID: <20110726115624.12807.93712.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:56:24 -0700 Cc: savi@ietf.org Subject: [savi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-savi-framework-05.txt X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:56:25 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Source Address Validation Improvement= s Working Group of the IETF. Title : Source Address Validation Improvement Framework Author(s) : Jianping Wu Jun Bi Marcelo Bagnulo Fred Baker Christian Vogt Filename : draft-ietf-savi-framework-05.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2011-07-26 The Source Address Validation Improvement method was developed to complement ingress filtering with finer-grained, standardized IP source address validation. This document describes and motivates the design of the SAVI method. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-savi-framework-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-savi-framework-05.txt