Re: [saag] should we revise rfc 3365?

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 24 May 2012 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161FB11E809B for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 17:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Qj3D+UB9enBF for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 17:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FDD11E8088 for <saag@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 17:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4O0uTpN016957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 May 2012 17:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FBD873D.3090802@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:56:29 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
References: <4FBD6A78.2070204@cs.tcd.ie> <201205232351.TAA23415@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <201205232351.TAA23415@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: saag@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [saag] should we revise rfc 3365?
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 00:57:09 -0000

On 5/23/2012 4:51 PM, Mouse wrote:
>> Short version: go read [RFC 3365] and say if you think it needs an
>> update.
>
> Yes, but I believe it's not one you're willing to accept.
>
>> "MUST implement strong security in all protocols"

To open a can of worms, this would also be a good doc in which to 
discuss the need for secure ports, and whether (or not) to ever assign 
meaning to the difference between system and user ports...

I was hoping to potentially open those discussions on TSVWG regarding 
the user-ports draft, but it might also be relevant here. I'm not sure 
if either will come to conclusion, but a round of discussion seems in order.

Joe