Re: [OPSEC] Request for opions on accepting draft-gont-opsec-ip-security-01 as a working group document

Alfred Hönes <> Sun, 11 January 2009 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C8C28C261; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:15:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9E03A67B6 for <>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:39:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.383
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.357, BAYES_05=-1.11, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6hyfSttwl6XN for <>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:39:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE973A6940 for <>; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: $/16.3) id AA234436236; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:37:16 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id VAA13907; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:37:11 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:37:11 +0100 (MEZ)
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:15:48 -0800
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Request for opions on accepting draft-gont-opsec-ip-security-01 as a working group document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

sorry for coming in a bit late - but we all suffered from
"Hash Rush Hour" for two weeks now, with the (Sotirov et al.)
MD5 demonstration at 25C3 triggering the renewal of quite a
couple of discussions about IETF work in progress ...

This event once again has clearly shown that the IETF has not
properly fulfilled its mission to maintain important Internet
protocols and boost vendors to take proper care of security
threats in a sensible and interoperable way.

Documents like the Security Assessment of IP can play an important
role, in particular if they have undergone a broad review -- not
only by protocol purists, but implementers and operators at large.

I already had supported this work earlier, and I'm confident that
adapting it as a work item of this WG greatly increases the chances
of arriving at reasonably quick progress towards a useful IETF
publication presenting the 'security state of the art' for IP --
unfortunately, previous attempts to strengthen and clarify the
specifications for IP have not found the necessary support within
the IETF over many years, due to various circumstances.

Therefore, I strongly recommend to take over this work, and I hope
for a broad and strong committment of the WG to lead it to success.

Being busy with other topics, I did not have the time yet to perform
a complete review of the draft until now, but I will do so as soon as
possible -- and that reasonably means: based on an draft-opsec-..-00
version I hope to see soon!

Best regards,
  Alfred Hönes.


| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:                     |

OPSEC mailing list