IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-06.txt>

George Jones <fooologist@gmail.com> Fri, 07 January 2011 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <fooologist@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A293A68C8 for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 05:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 80FPyUWfWmUd for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 05:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1F73A68C2 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 05:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so2032345qwi.31 for <opsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 05:47:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dpJYLyM56uO28h/t9ovLbGWFsu58XXKq14Wwro+wS3M=; b=FDV614KS+GZw2J/P4wOyhiGkGr40KX7t7feXOqGtZJQqXQ+zNDB7TeRE2fSH06jRt9 i8lS1Vi3BW1OuOPH8HbuIeDIAkXK2iarDHllrEjyslJm3AkAYWLZFeS03W0dJqWxr9S5 0IghhsOFAKM51g2KdiuKZm1cZJmbX+07/YUCs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=JdRfN6H1Q31MAeEOzua2SLvZ8KaO5c25X8XFUObmMTKBn8XcANd/X0BmuoyEjXs61N wWelLzVnxywQIsaYbcwvOteb51TmDEkfGoyN5Nxg/FtgNOsOWE1RKzgm9SxG4KMEzt2D Lg4fzsqtdtng8t9ktZefY6/+W0iAKIzm1PjTc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.218.197 with SMTP id hr5mr9105837qcb.14.1294408029883; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 05:47:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.98.85 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 05:47:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B03C23767C@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <20101223193418.26547.34582.idtracker@localhost> <64E1A73D-2221-4035-8E77-79A6515A0DC3@kumari.net> <20110104092257.2ff16390@t61p> <AANLkTinsOZrbJ2+5pSVnTxFXcw0QLuPR5Q5guN6ZWE8n@mail.gmail.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B03C23767C@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:47:09 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3f_CdQdeiXp3BH9UwbPrt0UO_=cpaZ6PrZgzt@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Jones <fooologist@gmail.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016361e80a8d0cc44049941daea"
Cc: "opsec@ietf.org mailing list" <opsec@ietf.org>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-06.txt>
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsec>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:45:07 -0000

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

>  Response inline……
>
>  has been
>
> started, but we haven't spent much time on it lately.  I can endeavor
> to get this work going again this week.
>
>  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kristoff-opsec-port-filtering-00>
>
>
>
> This is very important work! Please continue.
>
>
>
> I believe that this would be helpful both to the operator and vendor
> communities, New operators would learn what to filter. Application and
> protocol developers would learn what is likely to be filtered.
>
>
>


I'm just thinking that if we spin up capability drafts ("the device
is capable of ....") it would be useful
to have a common rational/list of motivators ("help in testing", etc.) and
possibly a common format.

Before we run off an write/finish a bunch of drafts I think we (the WG
Chairs/ADs/WG members)
should at least have that discussion so that we can say why we're writing
drafts and how
we anticipate them being useful.

---George Jones

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email