Re: Security for various IETF services

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 06 April 2014 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5F01A01BD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 zx6fZ_GSYAvx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11E11A0502 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 15:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA126BE24; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 23:11:48 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
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 jtVyecNMcytd; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 23:11:46 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.12] (unknown [86.44.74.117]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84617BE20; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 23:11:46 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <5341D122.6010002@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:11:46 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services
References: <533D8A90.60309@cs.tcd.ie> <533EEF35.7070901@isdg.net> <CAKW6Ri5_Ty6rVsMTBKXEjC6r7Mg-o8pZoLQP+yJ4pBwqOF-nYw@mail.gmail.com> <533F0C7B.9090705@isdg.net> <CAKW6Ri699AuEOf-qf-iZ7vNdD7iEdF4uEnwX-HGB31EshJ_OXQ@mail.gmail.com> <53400355.7030807@isdg.net> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E779EEBF@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <CAKW6Ri6jD4=pMdE_nsSnqyg6sKDT29_69_9jf=vfT2z6au7hNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri6jD4=pMdE_nsSnqyg6sKDT29_69_9jf=vfT2z6au7hNQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EUpD-taemDYHmLIunmDAfhqQms4
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 22:12:00 -0000

On 04/06/2014 08:27 PM, Dick Franks wrote:
> On 5 April 2014 14:40, <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> "I didn't see anything that stood out. Are you referring to his why
>> question?  Really?  It seems others answered why."
>>
>> they did not.
>>
>> Other noises off-stage are rrelevant
> 
> The author(s) of the proposal MUST provide the threat model for each
> service and a reasoned argument why the proposed action mitigates the
> identified threat or threats.
> 
> Engineering best practice demands no less.

I disagree. Asking for a threat model seems odd, since the
proposed IESG statement isn't specific to a particular service
and absent that you can't sensibly construct a threat model I
think.

> Transparent decision process demands no less.

I have no idea what's apparently opaque.

> Ignoring Lloyd Wood's question is not an option.

LLoyd's questions were answered IMO.

S..



> 
> 
> Dick Franks
>