Re: [Idr] [v6ops] IPv6 OPSEC drafts need review
"Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 14:47 UTC
Return-Path: <gvandeve@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D80021F873B; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 07:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.784
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.385, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b5GBCXkcDs7L; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 07:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA4B21F873A; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 07:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=gvandeve@cisco.com; l=1847; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344350850; x=1345560450; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3BMGJjdAMOv9Bl8mXByeEvq7oIFJKG40Vu0J5/1WvwI=; b=Ur7TpJu8+u5uqo7HolRAR30Tty9QbXLDhm1h2mDiLDOlVkZiikpaitEx AqUn9ssSNIX1wHxXYv7WfnK+HO6hOEYgwB307mh6rzeQnvF4U1W81Zcgu KLn8LExNXaMpVQlIgS2eBz+T4TP+qUoAoNtRTsWK1skz/1K48aiweFgIt I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAoqIVCtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFuUaBB4IgAQEBBAEBAQ8BCh00CwUHBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHJwsUCQgBAQQBDQUIGodrC5tWoFmLDxqFc2ADllyNEoFmgl+BXw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,727,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="109167149"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2012 14:47:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q77ElTVW003660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 14:47:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.122]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:47:28 -0500
From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "opsec@ietf.org" <opsec@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] IPv6 OPSEC drafts need review
Thread-Index: Ac1zr7XviImO0VW9ShaYOQMMM67U3AA059NkAAn2Y+A=
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:47:28 +0000
Message-ID: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B2406BF8D@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com>
References: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240674DA@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> <039d01cd7482$b1b65720$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <039d01cd7482$b1b65720$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.99.43]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19090.005
x-tm-as-result: No--36.613900-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-vyncke-opsec-v6@tools.ietf.org" <draft-vyncke-opsec-v6@tools.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-jdurant-bgp-security-01@tools.ietf.org" <draft-jdurant-bgp-security-01@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [v6ops] IPv6 OPSEC drafts need review
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:47:31 -0000
Hi Tom, Good question. Added idr and grow for their feedback on this work. Reason for OPSEC is as it deals with operational security on BGP deployments. If general consensus is that other WG is more appropriate, then that is ok for me also. I will leave that to the IAD's to decide. G/ -----Original Message----- From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] Sent: 07 August 2012 11:54 To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve); opsec@ietf.org Cc: draft-vyncke-opsec-v6@tools.ietf.org; v6ops@ietf.org; draft-jdurant-bgp-security-01@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 OPSEC drafts need review ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com> To: <opsec@ietf.org> Cc: <draft-vyncke-opsec-v6@tools.ietf.org>; <v6ops@ietf.org>; <draft-jdurant-bgp-security-01@tools.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9:51 AM Dear all, As mentioned during the OPSEC WG meeting, the following 2 drafts will in 3 weeks be considered for WG documents, after a call for feedback on the email list. During the WG meeting it became clear that not that many people read the documents until now. Please read drafts: 2) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jdurand-bgp-security-01 <tp> Why OPSEC, when we have GROW or even IDR, neither of whom are copied on this e-mail? What do the chairs of those WGs say? Tom Petch </tp> On Monday 27th the chairs of OPSEC WG will ask the WG during a period of 7 days for feedback on these drafts to support or deny acceptance as WG documents. Kind Regards, G/, KK & Warren ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
- Re: [Idr] [v6ops] IPv6 OPSEC drafts need review Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)