Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 16 February 2018 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5CE12D87B for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEDcIl7d7uby for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:05:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C705312D86B for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 06:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F234BE3E for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:05:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q0s6XcGWmvpT for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:05:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6A81BE51 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:04:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1518789897; bh=nJZsmAXZBdn1F/bJ9kAjpFpr061TT/+Mg428WMbmjgI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Oa4EZM7Sv64XSksBr0ht6L0hF4/gulwrJ9cyFnpuyPv6CY6U0eMFqvMCDvBN1Z940 9k9eNmNfat4MHAq5lMoRe/TtZ1BepumClPKnuB6vLt32fwdsSAbtwxnZB+Xwpbdl9T WR8lyp3mBRaNPUOJOW6p0d+piFj/TBimgXr1cpkw=
To: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
References: <cd3042c4-e213-feb2-47ea-00f5fb6ab3ab@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <f2e28034-afa7-1474-75ff-387e39de8a14@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:04:56 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cd3042c4-e213-feb2-47ea-00f5fb6ab3ab@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Ed8xwOigAgx6K6JCf42jubNpNrcOlauMh"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/Ke0WtzbIbxIjSOjdUZBIZtGPJ2Q>
Subject: Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 14:05:03 -0000

Hi All,

Barbara and I chatted about the discussion in this thread,
and here's our summary, please correct us if we've gotten
stuff wrong.

- On item 1, work on the security considerations of
draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming will proceed as usual.

- On item 2, (the perimeter security draft milestone in
our charter), we don't see anyone stepping up right now
to do that work, so unless someone does in the next few
days, we'll have a chat with our AD about whether or not
it makes sense to remove that milestone from the charter,
or do something else. We'll report back on that at
IETF-101 or before.

- On item 3, (profiling HNCP and Babel security stuff
for homenet), it seems like folks would like to wait a
bit and see how at least the Babel work progresses, and
maybe we should have a discussion at IETF-101 about when
it makes sense to start work on profiling what gets picked
in the Babel WG, for use in homenets, and whether there's
any chance of near-term progress on HNCP security
mechanisms for homenets. We'll also allocate a slot in
our draft agenda for a presentation about anima enrolment
(as offered by Michael Richardson, assuming he's still up
for doing that:-) to provide some additional background
for that discussion.

Again, thanks for the discussion so far, and please
do correct the above if we've mis-interpreted the
sense of the list.

Cheers,
Barbara and Stephen.