Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-sdt-detnet-security-01

["Maik Seewald (maseewal)" <[e-mail]>]

Yes/Support.

I missed this in my previous mail.

Cheers, Maik

On 13.09.17, 16:22, "Maik Seewald (maseewal)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hello Ethan,
>
>Only a few comments on the use cases for the industries, especially in the
>utility environment:
>
>- Especially in power automation, there is more and more regulation
>including standards (e.g.: NERC CIP in North America)
>- Availability and integrity are the most important security objectives
>(and requirements), confidentiality and privacy are relevant if customer
>or market data is involved
>- Along these lines, there is a requirement for end-to-end security which
>is already standardised (and implemented) for many automation and control
>protocols (protecting the app layer and/or transport[typically using TLS])
>- Another security control which is also standardised and implemented is
>segmentation (zones and conduits including access control)
>- These are two trends any communication architecture need to deal with
>- The requirements in industrial automation are quite similar, especially
>in new scenarios such as Industry 4.0/Digital Factory where workflows and
>protocols cross zones, segments, and entities
>- IEC 62443 (ISA99) defines security for Industrial Automation and Control
>Systems (IACS), typically for installations in the critical infrastructure
>- It comprises domains such as industrial automation, oil&gas, and
>electricity transmission and distribution; the foundational requirements
>are a great source for industrial security
>
>Regarding the Detnet specifics, IMHO, it is imperative to protect the
>network controller (wherever a controller is used) using strong security
>controls and mitigation technologies.
>A hacked/compromised controller would allow any disastrous (attack)
>scenario.
>
>Cheers,
>Maik 
> 
>
>
>
>On 12.09.17, 19:21, "detnet on behalf of Grossman, Ethan A."
><[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Thanks Lou, 
>>Yes/support. 
>>
>>On behalf of the DetNet Security Design Team, we are pleased and excited
>>about achieving workgroup adoption, and we look forward to input from the
>>broader DetNet community. Below is our current list of items which we
>>would like to address next in the draft - if anyone has additional
>>suggestions or would like to help with the next release of the draft,
>>which we are planning for IETF 100, please reply.
>>
>>1) We need to make another pass through every section to clean up loose
>>ends, unify the writing style and flesh out some of the statements.
>>2) Given that the Data Plane has been basically established, we need to
>>extend the draft to address these specifics (e.g. implied by use of IPv6
>>and/or MPLS-PW).
>>3) We believe it would be helpful to establish solid requirements before
>>we can expect external reviewers to review this draft, so our intent is
>>to take the various use case statements in the appendix and turn them
>>into more formal statement of requirements that a reviewer could measure
>>our draft against.
>>4) We need to review and improve our threat model to reduce our chances
>>of being blind-sided by threats we haven't addressed.
>>5) The current structure of the document has some "unusual" things about
>>it, for example the section about use cases in which there are statements
>>that are phrased as questions (like "does the threat attack the timely
>>arrival of packets?") - we need to come up with a better way to phrase
>>this information.
>>
>>Best,
>>Ethan Grossman
>>DetNet Security Draft editor
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:14 AM
>>To: DetNet WG <[e-mail]>
>>Cc: DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-sdt-detnet-security-01
>>
>>All,
>>
>>This is start of a two week poll on making draft-sdt-detnet-security-01 a
>>working group document. Please send email to the list indicating
>>"yes/support" or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state
>>your reservations with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to
>>provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG
>>document.
>>
>>The poll ends Sep 26.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Lou (and Pat)
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>detnet mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>detnet mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>