Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

[Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

Please standby for my response to Roger.

                                    Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:29 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica; Joel M. Halpern; Roger Jørgensen; Ross Callon
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> 
> The threats document does not specify how to resolve the threats.  It
> identifies problems.  In this particular case, it already identifies the problem
> that Ross raised.  Quite clearly.
> 
> There is no dependence on the documents Roger pointed to.  They are ways
> of remediating the threat.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 5/15/14, 2:15 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> > Joel,
> >
> > The threats document should not depend on lisp-sec or lisp-crypto.
> > However, Roger's response did rely on those documents (see his
> > response, below).
> >
> > So, we are left to explore whether something was omitted from the
> > threats document. Standby for my response to Roger.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:57 PM
> >> To: Ronald Bonica; Roger Jørgensen; Ross Callon Cc: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats
> >>
> >> Ron, I am having trouble with the question.
> >>
> >> The threats document describes the threats as they exist today,
> >> without the adoption of either document that Roger pointed to.
> >> Thus, I do not see any dependence.
> >>
> >> If there is a threat that is not well described in the base spec or
> >> this document, then we should add it.  We should add it even if there
> >> are proposals to remediate it.  But if there is a clear proposal of a
> >> missing threat, I missed it.
> >>
> >> Yours, Joel
> >>
> >> On 5/13/14, 1:31 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> >>> Hi Roger,
> >>>
> >>> Or asked more explicitly, can the level of security claimed by the
> >>> threats
> >> document be achieved without implementing the protocol extensions
> >> described in lisp-sec and lisp-crypto?
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Bonica Sent: Tuesday, May
> >>>> 13, 2014 1:22 PM To: 'Roger Jørgensen'; Ross Callon Cc:
> >>>> [e-mail] Subject: RE: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP
> >>>> threats
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Roger,
> >>>>
> >>>> Can this draft stand on its own, without integrating content from
> >>>> the documents that you reference?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ron
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There exist two draft that are relevant to what you address.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You have
> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> where the payload of a LISP encapsulated packet are encrypted. None
> >>>>> of the keys for encrypting/decrypting are stored in the mapping
> >>>>> system but is calculated by the xTR's involved. Then you have
> >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec/ that
> >>>>> attempts to secure the xTR to xTR relationship.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________ lisp
> mailing list
> >>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> >>>