Re: Conclusion: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-07

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 15 January 2014 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4861AE37E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:25:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 1wBJytpWLeBK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178161AE3A8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s0FFPGqt015420 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:25:16 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 18A472081D9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:26:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108672081D0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:26:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s0FFPD7c031057 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:25:16 +0100
Message-ID: <52D6A859.1010407@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:25:13 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Conclusion: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-07
References: <34A47FEE-22AF-4980-8A9A-4D0202CE1591@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <34A47FEE-22AF-4980-8A9A-4D0202CE1591@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:25:31 -0000

Le 15/01/2014 09:03, Ole Troan a écrit :
> All,
>
> Title:       A Simple Secure Addressing Scheme for IPv6
> AutoConfiguration (SSAS) Draft:      draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-07 Type:
> Working group Adoption call Last call: 2013-11-19 - 2013-11-26 (but
> in practice until now)
>
> Number of messages on thread: 75 Support for adoption: No consensus
>
> The chairs have after much deliberation and discussion with the AD,
> decided that there is no consensus to adopt the draft. This is based
> on the technical concerns raised during the adoption call, and the
> deployment situation of SEND. Issues have been raised regarding the
> proposed CGA algorithm that we don’t see clear answers to. While we
> recognize that the problem of address spoofing and authentication on
> IPv6 links is an important to solve, we do not see a consensus that
> the proposed solution will significantly change the current SEND
> deployment situation. We do not believe the working group
> understands why SEND is not deployed. If that is because the users do
> not perceive the problem as important, or if other solutions (e.g. on
> L2) are being deployed.

The lack of SeND deployment could be an issue.

There are some areas where IP security is needed with link scope, on
links which have little or no link-layer security.

One could also argue about the incompatibility of link1-layer security
with link2-layer security; or maybe the optimizations which could exist
if a wifi/bluetooth sensor node could carry a single set of keys instead
of 2.

To further dissect the question of SeND deployment one would need to
quantify it.  One would do so first by some simple means such as
checking the  availability of open-source implementations, and feature
presence in linux and other kernels.

Alex

>
> Overall, we think these the technical and deployment issues need to
> be addressed before the working group could adopt this document.
>
> We would encourage the working group to continue work on address
> spoofing and authentication on IPv6 links.
>
> Best regards, Bob and Ole
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>