[OPSEC] Next task: draft-bhatia-manral-igp-crypto-requirements-04

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 12 January 2010 04:42 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 DF4573A6989 for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:42:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 oEtI5wN+JiZu for <opsec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:42:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AF53A697F for <opsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:42:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.131] (c-98-234-104-156.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.104.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0C4giZB080161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <opsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:42:45 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4B4BFDBA.2030303@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:42:34 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "'opsec@ietf.org'" <opsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:42:45 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [OPSEC] Next task: draft-bhatia-manral-igp-crypto-requirements-04
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: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:42:49 -0000

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhatia-manral-igp-crypto-requirements-04

To briefly recounted the saga as I know it, it has been discussed on
this list before. Was presented in opsec first at ietf 74 with
significant group feedback, and resulted in a spirited discussion on
this list, including some extremely helpful commentary from RJ Atkinson
on the attack surface of the various currently in-use algorithms.
Subsequently the authors sought and received commentary from the
security ad's.

The resulting document is ready for testing of wg acceptance. It is my
understanding that the intended status of this document is informational.

Glen Kent noted his support for the  current document on 12/16.

Comment period will run 1 calender week 1/11-1/18

---

WG chair hat off,

I think the draft could  still use of tweaks to the overall tone before
it goes to last call, I see that value as guidance to implementors and
perhaps operators rather than as guidance to the routing area, the work
that will produce these protocol will necessarily occur separately from
this document itself.

 I have a significant hand in changes between draft 03 and draft 04 for
so I'm not entirely unbiased when it some to the current state, but I
think it's pretty good. use of lower chase should in terms of addressing
future requirements I think adequately conveys that this doucment
recommends protocol changes but is not itself imposing those
recommendations.

thanks
joel