[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Draft Opsec WG minutes from Montreal IETF
Hey Ross,
Curious, wasn't there discussion to take
"draft-lewis-infrastructure-security" to the list as well? Is that in the
minutes as well and I just missed it?
If so, and as i said in the WG mtg, I support.
Thanks
-ted
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006, Ross Callon wrote:
> Hi,
> Included are the draft minutes of our session in Montreal as captured by
> Chris, with additions from Ross and me. Please let us know of any omissions
> or corrections in the next week.
>
> Thank you.
> Pat
>
> ===================================
> Opsec WG - 13 July 2006, IETF 66
>
> Ross Callon and Patrick Cain, Chairs, present
>
> George Jones volunteered to be jabber scribe
>
> Chris Lonvick volunteered to take minutes
>
>
>
> 1. Agenda bashing
> None.
>
> 2. Charter review - outputs review
>
> 3. Status of Current WG Docs.
> opsec-framework : probably to be INFORMATIONAL, WG Last Call will be
> requested soon.
> opsec-efforts : Looks ready; will be sent to WG last call likely next
> week.
> opsec-current-practices : some reorg and still filling in content, next
> version coming in a week or two - hopefully destined to become a BCP.
> Last call shall start soon.
>
> 4. Status of new-ish WG Docs.
> opsec-misc-cap : remove MUST/SHOULD/MAY, some text needs to be modified
> based upon not-so-recent email discussion (Ross to send note to WG about
> how a document becomes BCP, what it needs to have, etc.) It was
> discussed
> that in general the capabilities documents are discussing "capabilities"
> and not "requirements", and therefore the "MUST", "SHOULD", ... language
> will be removed.
>
> opsec-nmasc : author not present
>
> zhao-opsec-routing-capabilities : will be discussed later in the agenda
>
> cain-logging-caps : -00 This is a new document by Pat Cain (was sent to
> working
> group email exploder -- see July 5th email) but is not yet in the
> Internet Drafts repository, comments welcome
>
> 5. Review of Capabilities documents in Charter - some but not all of the
> capabilities documents listed in the charter have been written.
>
> 6. The way forward:
> - The Charter milestones have all been passed. The ADs would like us
> to finish up (and subsequently close the WG). Regarding the capabilities
> documents - we need to get them done, or review other options. They
> need to be nearly complete at the next IETF meeting. Then get all docs
> submitted to the IESG by the IETF meeting after that. The ADs have
> therefore stated that for each capability document we need to have a
> nearly complete document by September 1st, and have the document
> accepted as a working group document prior to the next IETF (November
> in San Diego), or the document will be removed from the charter.
> - Profiles - there are not a lot of profiles, if anyone is interested,
> please write them (or they too will be removed from the charter)
>
> 7. Available documents:
> draft-zhao-opsec-routing-capabilities - Miao Fuyou
> Not addressing data packet filtering (out of scope of the document).
> Routing filtering is in scope of the document.
> Should this be a WG document? (Ross reclused himself from this
> discussion since he is a co-author)
> How will the doc be submitted - INFORMATIONAL or BCP?
>
> -Ted Seely: still a bit vague, comments about SHOULD/MUST, (George
> suggested SHOULD/MUST/MAY be removed.
> -Pekka: The wording needs to be changed to "the device should be capable
> of..." rather than "the device MUST...", sometimes "the device should
> be able to be configured to do.." Who is the document intended for?
> Vendors so they can build it? SPs so they can practice this.
> -mike: are these capabilities to address security, or will they be used
> to address policy?
> -Ross: the WG cannot take on policy, just operational security
>
> A Hum was taken on acceptance as a WG document:
> -Pat: humm - the FOR humm was slightly louder than the ANTI humm. Since
> there
> was not a real consensus we should discuss it more on the mail list.
>
> draft-lewis-infrastructure-security - Peter Shoenmaker
> Best practices in security network infrastructure
> Intended for operators and end customers to make the infrastructure
> more secure
> Complements BCP 38/84
> Should the document become a WG document?
> The -01 draft will be available in the next few weeks.
>
> -Ross: (speaking as an individual contributor): it needs editing but it
> is valuable
> -Pekka: It's not obvious how this fits into the Charter, there are some
> techniques that are described that might not be acceptable to all,
> there are some very useful recommendations, but some more work is
> needed.
> -Sandy Murphy: Pekka didn't mention his own draft that covers
> infrastructure security.
> -Ross: Pekka will discuss his draft.
> -Sandy: What is the intended use of this document? Also, there are
> cases where the links are wireless which changes the model that the
> document addresses.
> -Pat: A discussion arose during the last IETF that we aren't giving SPs
> security direction. Darren volunteered to write something up.
> -Darrell Lewis: There shouldn't be much difference between wired and
> wireless, or satellite, the Charter mentions that the WG wants
> operational practices.
> -Ted Seely: The document is relevant. If there are concerns about
> media, then narrow the scope of the document. IP hiding is a good
> suggestion.
> -George: Both this and Pekka's document are in line with the Practices
> documents.
> -Dave Kessins (as AD): If it's not 100% covered in the charter, that
> shouldn't preclude it from being considered. However, it is a concern
> that this WG is behind on their milestones. The documents need to be
> done on time.
>
> draft-savola-rtgwg-backbone-attacks-02.txt - Pekka Savola
> "Backbone Infrastructure Attacks and Protections"
>
> Describes a view of ISP backbone network attacks
> Not clear where the home for this document is.
> Francois: IPsec implementation?
>
> draft-savola-bcp84-urpf-experiences-01.txt - Pekka Savola
> "Experiences from Using Unicast RPF"
>
> Pat: These docs don't appear to exactly fit in the Charter but they look to
> be useful.
> We should look at them and everyone is requested to submit comments.
>
> Pat: Should the document become a WG document? Needs to be reviewed with
> the AD.
>
> 8. Meeting adjourned.
>
> --end--
>
>
>
>
Ted Seely
Principal Network Design Engineer
Internet Engineering - SprintLink
(W) 703.689.6425
(M) 703.967.3289
AIM - wanpro00
Yahoo IM - tseely01
"Serious damage and router meltdown could be avoided by strict
configuration validation"