IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [karp] threats-reqs: New requirements document for KMP

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Fri, 16 March 2012 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B88C21F8619 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.255
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 FlPGqD4sH5Hh for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6059621F85ED for <karp@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2730C20289; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:57:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 31C124767; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com>
References: <tslehstj2om.fsf@mit.edu> <6EFEEA85-1E82-4592-A258-E350F5F8D45D@cisco.com> <D1D8138DDF34B34B8BC68A11262D10791B8BD7D120@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:57:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <D1D8138DDF34B34B8BC68A11262D10791B8BD7D120@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> (Uma Chunduri's message of "Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:31:41 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslehssfy23.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [karp] threats-reqs: New requirements document for KMP
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:58:02 -0000

>>>>> "Uma" == Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@ericsson.com> writes:

    Uma> I don't see any objection here.  On this note, I presume each
    Uma> protocol Gap analysis document should capture both PHASE1 and
    Uma> PHASE2 (KMP) requirements.  We did this for IS-IS
    Uma> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chunduri-karp-is-is-gap-analysis/)

That's not clear to me. For IS-IS it seems worth starting to think about
 the phase 2 issues as soon as possible because I think that IS-IS has
 complex phase 2 requirements compared to other RPs.

However I'd interpreted the gap analysis as a phase 1 effort.
For most protocols I'd hope there are few if any phase 2 issues.
If we're doing the right thing with the phase 1 work and the key tables,
then protocols should look much the same to the KMP.
Getting to that state is kind of a requirement for phase 1 outlined in
section 4 of threats-reqs.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email