Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

[Ross Callon <[e-mail]>]

No problem. I just didn't want the other issues to be forgotten in the excitement over gleaning. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:42 PM
To: Ross Callon; Joel Halpern Direct; Ronald Bonica; Roger Jørgensen
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats

I may have misread the discussion.
I was commenting only on the one topic of gleaning.  I was leaving it to 
the authors to respond to your other comments.
Yours,
Joel

On 5/15/14, 5:39 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
> I raised a list of problems. They are not all already mentioned in the threats document (eg, note the privacy issue at the end of my detailed email).
>
> Ross
>
> -----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
>>>>
>