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

Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com> Mon, 20 June 2011 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EA111E808E for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3VRmCFq8sZK9 for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FCF11E808A for <savi@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so919529gwb.31 for <savi@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LgOy8X6Jyc3Mj2pNtwe8tnAabx/yd6g9KsShDvsb8vY=; b=rBvSqYH3/dEfZqOIO7UGghtOpaLmzao31N8426BBA+l0WdeTuYyOPm7Ry4QIHrY2tQ xVpjuM9IboV3+ZTguhP5CZKDsMQMWAP+7qstOcGdc6p5qPmPxyziHXysJdVzY9ocp+Jm Dprvi4gRHzeFaASXqKZB6AhpOa5QCmSfiL14o=
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=aPLujI9Ucd35UdhV5fwW2d7xNgvWviyP/6kRyQWZ/6V7QtxQ6Yl/lWRWSLR7sPBmQW SCn07uJ54pkjnGMXibkhuO50xTOp+buQOOVElE/Mspii+R6YF/2oYx2Zy8RzhFm36LBN KeLF9DwuodCtsnEVad2bfvRyUqd9E0/ki4iKE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.62.19 with SMTP id k19mr6391459yba.38.1308592559611; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.83.20 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DFF6EBC.9080406@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <20110526184749.21820.68101.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DE34147.8070103@piuha.net> <4DE3A604.8080807@joelhalpern.com> <BANLkTiky5iejz2gnL=tgt4u+-52OZ-pQJA@mail.gmail.com> <4DFA7585.4060406@cs.tcd.ie> <BANLkTing6OAcmmY_W2UuEnb6S8rsrysSUw@mail.gmail.com> <4DFF6EBC.9080406@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:55:59 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimce51=a_K25gJxYSWL6heaD0FcoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope@tools.ietf.org, SAVI Mailing List <savi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [savi] Status of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:56:01 -0000

Stephen, fine! I will check carefully this point during my future reviews.

Now, coming back on the Threats document, do you think some text is
not compliant with your requirement?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards.

JMC.

2011/6/20 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>ie>:
>
>
> On 20/06/11 16:25, Jean-Michel Combes wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>

[snip]

>>>
>>> So I think that given that the charter and rfc 2804 have
>>> IETF consensus that would trump even a quite strong WG
>>> consensus on this topic. Hence my discuss.
>>>
>>
>> What can be done in the different SAVI documents, is to restrict
>> logging only when an incident has been detected (i.e. use of an IP
>> address not allowed on a binding anchor).
>>
>> Would it be fine for you?
>
> Only logging when an incident has been detected sounds
> perfect to me.
>
> Thanks for considering this,
> Regards,
> Stephen.
>
>

[snip]