Re: [savi] Status of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope

Jean-Michel Combes <> Wed, 08 June 2011 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3A711E8076 for <>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNKRxJ83d2LC for <>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D686C11E8104 for <>; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so417976gxk.31 for <>; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fvEo1j4hw1iKvDriYcLIl9agU58KikUXwRJ9wfHzDIk=; b=Zld81oAHhYKw1nVZ1Lx/0z9NGf9cic9pMlwzBV0hU0W18eFhmUQ+YVczPnyYbIar+G eq8DI4Mt2BHEqUsLsTZxpPzDZ54qavf6rHJcQq9GlhxI9HjZjQH1gp5zXS4nWjrLk++r 00Q27lG4dT5e2p/0DxfAtJahCsM1H2gWhAXHE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UPaxvy+HhJ5qYFWNC/IISTAwRcttfkY2H6aRP516Fco4QzDcfLnn88KzEoPaBC9fge HVeAt38Y9qPW7OlKLvB3XvLuLU2Qv9Rs0KH5l3xtK29mpQxpwUNAoVsgo5lqR2BrbYFn Rhrn8HYV8D2loDQU32zmug91j0iulyFAPR18M=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id o69mr2777077yhm.30.1307554111809; Wed, 08 Jun 2011 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:28:31 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Jean-Michel Combes <>
To: Jari Arkko <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: SAVI Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [savi] Status of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:28:34 -0000


At first sorry for the delayed reply.

Please, see my comments inline.

2011/5/30 Jari Arkko <>et>:
> Joel,
>> As I have said, i am happy to make most of the changes.
>> However, there are two changes requested by Ralph that change the scope in
>> a way that I do not feel I (or you) can call for.
>> I have been awaiting the Chair's review on these two substantive issues:
>> 1) The issue of analysis of the effect of SAVI, and what threats remain
>> after SAVI was requested by Stephen.  I pointed out that this is not in
>> scope for the document, and he said that he wanted it anyway.  I punted to
>> you and the chairs.  I believe it would take WG agreement, AD agreement on
>> scope change, and chair direction, before I can make that change.
> My opinion is that this document should NOT do that analysis or attempt to
> find out precisely what residual threats are after some set of SAVI tools
> have been implemented in a network. I think we touched upon it in the call,
> but I  can talk to Stephen about it.

I agree with Jari:
(1) IMHO, this would be like to put the cart before the horse :)
(2) to doing such an analysis you need a clear specification of a SAVI
mechanism which is outside the scope of this document. BTW, during my
review of FCFS SAVI for the ID Write-Up document, text about residual
threats was added inside the Security Considerations section. I will
carefully check that the DHCP SAVI, SEND SAVI and the Mix Scenario
documents take into account this issue before requesting AD/IESG

Best regards.


>> I am not sure whether Ralph's request for "more details" is arelaly a
>> discuss, or a suggestion to ask him for and consider more text.  I am
>> certainly willing to talk with him about it.  But I would need to temper any
>> such evaluation with the fact that folks asked us to CUT substantial
>> portions of text in the last review.
> OK. Its certainly bit of a borderline as a discuss. He wants more precise
> description and in some cases more text. From my read many of the points
> that he makes seemed reasonable. If I was the author I would go through his
> specific requests and see which ones made sense (while remembering the
> feedback you've gotten from other folks).
> You do not have to implement verbatim everything that the IESG reviewers ask
> for. Please fight back if the requests do not make sense. I thought I was
> asking for that, actually.
> Jari
> _______________________________________________
> savi mailing list