Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis-00.txt
Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Tue, 31 July 2012 14:30 UTC
Return-Path: <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5322621F85C7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ZM1cuchpQJzl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (rambutan.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4994421F85C3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.9.0.66] (fireball.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.13.10]) (user=smb2132 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q6VEU8wA023699 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:30:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis-00.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5017BDFE.5020100@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:30:07 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8D0D2246-86C9-4561-9EE9-3249DA7BAFF5@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <20120730082620.18701.51607.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <50164E21.2040904@gmail.com> <225158E4-78BC-42BC-8339-EB9E0DE75AA7@sobco.com> <5017B60D.5050101@pi.nu> <5017BDFE.5020100@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.5
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Scott O Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:30:14 -0000
Also note that RFC 3924 exists. On Jul 31, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Loa, > > I can't speak for Scott, but I think the problem arises if any > IANA assignments are needed, regardless of RFC status. That's > because RFC 2804 speaks of "the process for creating and maintaining > IETF standards." IANA assignments are part of standards maintenance > (IMHO, of course). > > Don't forget that 2804 *also* says > > " - On the other hand, the IETF believes that mechanisms designed to > facilitate or enable wiretapping, or methods of using other > facilities for such purposes, should be openly described, so as to > ensure the maximum review of the mechanisms and ensure that they > adhere as closely as possible to their design constraints. The IETF > believes that the publication of such mechanisms, and the > publication of known weaknesses in such mechanisms, is a Good > Thing." > > So it's a delicate balance. > > Brian > > On 31/07/2012 11:40, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Scott, >> >> would you say that drafts aimed for experimental status are "standards >> work". >> >> /Loa >> >> On 2012-07-30 18:33, Scott O Bradner wrote: >>> 2804 does not say not to talk about such things - or that such >>> documents should >>> not be published as RFCs - 2804 says that the IETF will not do >>> standards work >>> in this area >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> >>>> Under the long-standing IETF policy defined in RFC 2804, I trust >>>> we will not be discussing this draft, or >>>> draft-balaji-l2vpn-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis, in the IETF. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Brian Carpenter >>>> >>>> On 30/07/2012 09:26, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>>>> directories. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Title : Label-based Provider-Provisioned Lawful >>>>> Intercept for L3 VPNs >>>>> Author(s) : Shankar Raman >>>>> Balaji Venkat Venkataswami >>>>> Gaurav Raina >>>>> Vasan Srini >>>>> Bhargav Bhikkaji >>>>> Filename : >>>>> draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis-00.txt >>>>> Pages : 12 >>>>> Date : 2012-07-30 >>>>> >>>>> Abstract: >>>>> In models of Single-AS and inter-provider Multi- Protocol Label >>>>> Switching (MPLS) based Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) Lawful >>>>> Intercept is a key requirement. For example, MPLS-based Layer 3 VPN >>>>> models like VPLS and the like do not have any provider provisioned >>>>> methods of lawful intercept that are comprehensive, quick and >>>>> easy to >>>>> provision from one single point. More particularly the auto- >>>>> provisioning of lawful intercept for all sets of streams travelling >>>>> between VPN sites and consequent re-direction of these streams to >>>>> the >>>>> appropriate government network has not been covered without multiple >>>>> instances of having to configure the intercept at various points in >>>>> the network both in the Single-AS case and the Inter-Provider VPN >>>>> case. >>>>> >>>>> this paper, we propose a technique which uses a set of pre-defined >>>>> labels called Lawful Intercept labels and a method for provisioning >>>>> lawful intercept amongst the various PE devices using these labels >>>>> both in the Single-AS and the inter-provider VPN cases. A single >>>>> point of configuration is the key to this idea. The intercepted >>>>> traffic is mirrored on a PE or a whole set of PEs or on all the PEs >>>>> participating in the VPN. A technique called the Domino-effect >>>>> provisioning of these Label-based Provider Provisioned Lawful >>>>> Intercept mechanism is also outlined. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercept-thru-label-dis-00 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>>>> >>> >> > --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Randy Bush
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Scott O Bradner
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Eric Burger
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Randy Bush
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Stephen Farrell
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Glen Zorn
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Martin Rex
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Loa Andersson
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Steven Bellovin
- Re: I-D Action: draft-balaji-mpls-lawful-intercep… Scott O Bradner