Re: [MSEC] Key Management protocol (GDOI - 6407) forward

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Mon, 30 September 2013 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.com>
X-Original-To: msec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: msec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB4421F979E for <msec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.363
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 sq87zwOw6Wph for <msec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6412321F85D1 for <msec@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 08:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([194.29.34.147]) by smtp.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8UFqisF000616; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:52:44 +0300
X-CheckPoint: {52499E4C-0-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from DAG-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.3.30]) by IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com ([169.254.2.92]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:52:44 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
Thread-Topic: [MSEC] Key Management protocol (GDOI - 6407) forward
Thread-Index: Ac67FJGyoGPYHJStQ3mYygEDVBEZfAAEfu0gABl+LQAABa9lgACNPdEAAADvBAA=
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:52:43 +0000
Message-ID: <FE7558EA-CB7F-46B9-A973-00CBB0CE167A@checkpoint.com>
References: <CB6C229361B2E34190B3BF9F6EC922224DCCB760@EXCHMBSF323.Utility.pge.com> <418E74FA535F654FAB3CAAE12902E2940156AA80@SISCO-SBS.sisconet.local> <7417090A-55F1-42ED-B051-1EB197DAAB52@checkpoint.com> <5245E431.8070208@concordia.ca> <5249980C.2090201@ieca.com>
In-Reply-To: <5249980C.2090201@ieca.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.31.21.10]
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: protection disabled
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <6CCB754AB161264F8728F3F02045D6E4@ad.checkpoint.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "msec@ietf.org" <msec@ietf.org>, Jeff Gooding/SCE/EIX <Jeff.Gooding@sce.com>, "Maik Seewald \(maseewal\)" <maseewal@cisco.com>, "Andrew.Free@sce.com" <Andrew.Free@sce.com>, "Madani, Vahid" <VxM6@pge.com>, "Adamiak, Mark \(GE Energy Management\)" <mark.adamiak@ge.com>, "Novosel, Damir" <DNovosel@Quanta-Technology.com>, "Thanos, Daniel \(GE Energy Management\)" <Daniel.Thanos@ge.com>, Herb Falk <herb@sisconet.com>, "Alex Apostolov \(alex.apostolov@omicronusa.com\)" <alex.apostolov@omicronusa.com>
Subject: Re: [MSEC] Key Management protocol (GDOI - 6407) forward
X-BeenThere: msec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Security List <msec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/msec>
List-Post: <mailto:msec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec>, <mailto:msec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:53:33 -0000

I could, I guess.

Does it matter if prior to reading it I have never heard of IEC 62351-9 in particular, or IEC in general?

Yoav

On Sep 30, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>; wrote:

> For the record Brian has approached me about AD-sponsoring draft-weis-gdoi-iec62351-9-02.  I don't think it's actually an update of 6407 it's more of here's how IEC 62351 would use RFC 6407.
> 
> After talking with Brian in Berlin, I have but one dilemma AD-sponsoring such a draft is that it is intended for proposed standard and as best I can tell there's been one review (thanks Steffan).  Knowing that the msec community in the IETF is pretty small this might be a tall order, but is there anybody else out there will to give it a review?  (cough, hint) Yoav, Vincent :)
> 
> spt
> 
> On 9/27/13 4:01 PM, William Atwood wrote:
>> Actually, he is probably referring to the "6407 update draft", which is
>> draft-weis-gdoi-iec62351-9-02.  This is an update to 6407 precisely to
>> serve the IEC needs.  I suspect that the email is a plea for fast action
>> on progressing draft-weis to RFC.
>> 
>>   Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 27/09/2013 1:18 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> Just to be clear, there is no such thing as a "draft RFC". Drafts
>>> become RFCs, at which point they're done. You may be referring to the
>>> fact that RFC 6407 is labeled "proposed standard". This is a label
>>> that the IETF attaches to documents for which there is relatively
>>> little implementation experience. The label is not automatically
>>> changed after a while. Even things that are widely implemented and
>>> used by millions such as IKEv2 (RFC 5996), IPsec (RFC 4301), TLS (RFC
>>> 5246), and HTTP (RFC 2616), without a doubt the most popular protocol
>>> on the Internet) is at "draft standard" - a classification that does
>>> not exist any more, but was below "full standard".
>>> 
>>> I'm adding Sean Turner, the Security Area Director, because he's been
>>> handling many similar requests recently.
>>> 
>>> Hope this helps
>>> 
>>> Yoav
>>> 
>>> On Sep 27, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Herb Falk <herb@sisconet.com
>>> <mailto:herb@sisconet.com>> <Herb@sisconet.com
>>> <mailto:Herb@sisconet.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> IEC TC57 WG10 (61850) and IEC TC57 WG15 (Security) has been
>>>> developing a technology/standard for use as a secure multicast for
>>>> its use in power grid applications using synchrophasors and other
>>>> technologies relevant to smartgrid deployments globally.
>>>> As part of the effort, some extensions to GDOI were identified. The
>>>> 6407 draft incorporates and improves some of the enhancements already
>>>> identified.  IEC TC57 WG15 is waiting for the draft RFC to transition
>>>> to an RFC so it can be referenced as a normative standard in IEC 62351-9.
>>>> There are several utility vendors and utilities, in particular SCE
>>>> (Southern California Edison), that are awaiting this transition so
>>>> that their cyber security frameworks can be updated.  Delays in the
>>>> transition from draft to RFC will delay implementation of several
>>>> projects and implementations.
>>>> Herbert Falk
>>>> Solutions Architect
>>>> SISCO, INC.
>>>> 6605 19 ½ Mile Rd.
>>>> Sterling Heights, MI 48314
>>>> (586) 254-0020 x-105
>>>> <image001.png>
>>>> "In matters of style, swim with the current;   in matters of
>>>> principle, stand like a rock." [Thomas Jefferson]
>>>> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other
>>>> confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or
>>>> believe that you have received this communication in error, please do
>>>> not print, copy, retransmit,  disseminate, or otherwise use the
>>>> information. Also,  please indicate to the sender that you have
>>>> received this communication in error, and delete the copy you
>>>> received. Thank you.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MSEC mailing list
>>>> MSEC@ietf.org <mailto:MSEC@ietf.org>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MSEC mailing list
>>> MSEC@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/msec
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
>> Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
>> Department of Computer Science
>>    and Software Engineering
>> Concordia University EV 3.185email:william.atwood@concordia.ca
>> 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. Westhttp://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
>> Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
>> 
> 
> Email secured by Check Point