Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mext-aero-reqs8

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Davis," == Davis, Terry L <[e-mail]> writes:

    Davis,> Sam One of the items that continues to seriously concern
    Davis,> me across the whole IP protocol RFC set is the basic lack
    Davis,> of simple vendor-to-vendor IP security interoperability!
    Davis,> All of NEMO and MEXT assumes that simple, easy to
    Davis,> implement, IPSec, PKI, and IKE interoperability exist;
    Davis,> they do NOT.

With you so far.

    Davis,> In aviation we do not have the luxury that Enterprise or
    Davis,> Entity organizations have in being able to deploy "single
    Davis,> vendor" solutions!  In the aviation space, if someone made
    Davis,> one, aviation will have it somewhere in our infrastructure
    Davis,> and we need to interoperate with it as our aircraft
    Davis,> operate in a truly heterogeneous global space.  An
    Davis,> aircraft in flight will usually 1 to 4 open communications
    Davis,> links and these will be continuously changing as we hand
    Davis,> off between communication providers and "Navigation
    Davis,> Service Providers" who utilize entirely different vendors
    Davis,> and PKIs.

I think the rest of the world is much more similar to this than you believe.

    Davis,> Nor can we have a "single PKI" global solution;
    Davis,> nation/state laws preclude this in many cases as they
    Davis,> reasonably require credentials that they control for
    Davis,> authentication in their territory and bridge assurances,
    Davis,> although fine for business level relationships, may
    Davis,> reasonably not meet nation/state requirements for
    Davis,> operations within their nation.

    Davis,> I continue to state that the lack of easy to use/configure
    Davis,> vendor interoperability parameters for our basic IP
    Davis,> security protocol associations is a major failure in of
    Davis,> Internet architectures.  It cannot require a senior
    Davis,> network engineer, a senior PKI analyst, and dozens of
    Davis,> Wireshark traces to establish a secure link!  Entry level
    Davis,> engineers/analysts and techs need to be able to perform
    Davis,> this function as we do with basic network (DHCP)
    Davis,> connectivity.  We need a "dynamic security association
    Davis,> protocol" like DHCP for industries like aviation (and most
    Davis,> the CI sectors too!).

    Davis,> To me, this lack of a simple, easy to use,
    Davis,> interoperability security association configuration is one
    Davis,> of our most pressing issues in our efforts to establish
    Davis,> "cyber space security" regardless of what CI sector we are
    Davis,> looking at.

I think I'm in general agreement with you.  However I don't see how
any of this applies to my comments--unless possibly you are saying
that the draft needs to be expanded with additional security
requirements.