[lisp] Progress on threats document [Follow-Up]

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Thu, 05 March 2015 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 417F21A1A6C for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:13:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7WGjC6qS3vy4 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:13:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1A71A8748 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 05:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wesq59 with SMTP id q59so15868601wes.3 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 05:13:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=ZzimNhPpFy5by0F7lOfU3N4SvDF/MTnaxyMd18kKWLg=; b=JBScPP9v7gBJXpVCk2WxSUyHyPVLyD8fxMYeDJ9lTXeEDLylvzfhnHNEeDiJYHTv/P IT0vujdLMHVFB8bAdt29RjwC4JyCr7Ja3zaGbe11d/6DKmNMsFTrN0EISbP95qBkHJ9r sISA/XZFGUUDoywP3ecj4OenAe0aRqwhcXpgaip2oHOoTIodbGP4yBtcKnI7hMlVVJU2 VzQyA8YFlAbGDNUP9glRhWSuEwkGqXE9bwhwJ2ldrXGMzD5aDYNFxipexSFO+hXcpuRb XpZTyt1sCxzbFkNOuVyWb7bALB1NtZIPD7ZfWRk2ar25cDaFbA0wEa43I2jPUy5NLxIY k3tw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSMqBfIWOuBdnWaJyEMqfXgzhO2wbw37+DtKCYNn1wCuZu/DNSmaUhx81twKfmPu4ZIdIg
X-Received: by with SMTP id nd12mr65192341wic.88.1425561188488; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 05:13:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:660:330f:a4:58d4:15f4:1ef8:fe6c? ([2001:660:330f:a4:58d4:15f4:1ef8:fe6c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fo9sm29687932wib.16.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Mar 2015 05:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <AE9D0CCC-0F9F-4CF8-90C5-F566CD9BDF2F@gigix.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:13:07 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <28CD0A74-C890-48F2-8FFC-B1A25688EC49@gigix.net>
References: <AE9D0CCC-0F9F-4CF8-90C5-F566CD9BDF2F@gigix.net>
To: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/l0QEz94w4AQGcLcxjCmLFyIzp6E>
Cc: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Olivier Bonaventure <Olivier.Bonaventure@uclouvain.be>
Subject: [lisp] Progress on threats document [Follow-Up]
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:13:12 -0000

Hi All,

The threats document has been updated with all the received comments. This sets the threats analysis as _done_.

Is time to focus on mitigations. The updated document has a new section named “threats mitigation”.
Please review this part so to finalise the document during the next meeting in Dallas.



> On 12 Jan 2015, at 15:47, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> wrote:
> Hi All,
> back in Toronto the WG agreed to organise the threats document in two main parts: 
> 1- threat analysis 
> 2- threats mitigation
> there was also agreement to try to finalise the first part before tackling the second one.
> To this end, this would be the right time to review the current document and send any comment/feedback to the authors.
> Having such review by the end of February at latest would give sufficient time to have a new document with the first part done and a newly proposed second part before the meeting in Dallas.
> Please speak up before the end of February if you have any comment, otherwise authors will consider the first part as done.
> ciao
> Luigi