[OPSEC] Fwd: Document Action: 'Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol version 4' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security-07.txt)

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Fernando Gont for his hard work on this...

W

Begin forwarded message:

> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> Date: April 18, 2011 10:57:50 AM EDT
> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: opsec mailing list <opsec@ietf.org>, opsec chair <opsec-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: [OPSEC] Document Action: 'Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol	version 4' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security-07.txt)
> 
> The IESG has approved the following document:
> - 'Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol version 4'
>  (draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security-07.txt) as an Informational RFC
> 
> This document is the product of the Operational Security Capabilities for
> IP Network Infrastructure Working Group.
> 
> The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.
> 
> A URL of this Internet Draft is:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technical Summary
> 
> This document contains a security assessment of the IETF
> specifications of the Internet Protocol version 4, and of a number of
> mechanisms and policies in use by popular IPv4 implementations.  It
> is based on the results of a project carried out by the UK's Centre
> for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI).
> 
> Working Group Summary
> 
> Working group consensus required the settlement of two major points of
> contention:
> 
> Was this document in scope for the opsec working group charter, and were
> the participants sufficiently knowledgeable to provide input?
> 
> What status should be pursued by the document authors?
> 
> Regarding to former, it was the opinion of the area director and WG
> consensus that the document  was compatible with the working group
> charter. capabilities and limitations of the ipv4 protocol fall within the
> scope of operational security capabilities work.
> 
> Regarding the second question, consensus that informational status was
> the appropriate approach for this document. The number of documents
> potentially touched by this document is considerable. It is not necessary
> in the process of making recommendations on the basis of operational
> experience to update the protocol specification so long as those
> recommendations do not result in divergence from the protocol
> specification that would  result in non-inter-operable operation. That
> said, operationaly some such as source routing can be expected not to work
> as a product of current practice.
> 
> Document Quality
> 
> Numerous implementations of the IPv4 protocol exist. The recommendations
> contained within this document have accumulated over the course of close
> to 30 years worth of operational experience. The information contained in
> this document has not been collected in one IETF document before, doing so
> has produced a document that is quite challenging to review from a scale
> perspective. We have solicited and received a number of reviews high
> quality reviews and we believe that prior publication of previous versions
> of document also aided considerably with development and review.
> 
> 
> 
> Personnel
> 
> Joel Jaegli is shepherd for this draft.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
> 