[secdir] Discussion from the Security Directorate

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Tina. I will add this to the IPv6 Operations agenda, probably  
during our second session Tuesday.

You will note that I am copying the chairs and ADs from several  
working groups. The reason is that the primary thrust of the comments  
you are making apply to work being done in those working groups. Slide  
5 specifically requests a threat analysis, security assessment, and  
"function recommendation" on each transition technology; these are in  
fact being done in behave and softwires. I mention 6man because  
marketing blather from the IPv6 form makes security claims for IPv6,  
which it would be good if that working group clarified.

I do have to ask specifically what the Security Directorate hopes to  
find in the three documents that have been requested for each of these  
various technologies. What, specifically, is a "function  
recommendation"? A threat analysis is a statement that there exist a  
set of possible threats. Is a security assessment a statement about  
how those threats are responded to? What, if the WGs don't produce it,  
is going to leave the Security Directorate feeling ill-used?

On Jul 27, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:

>
> B. R.
> ">http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>
>> Date: July 27, 2009 7:52:20 AM GMT+02:00
>> To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: FW: [OPS-DIR] Reminder: OPS-DIR working lunch
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> This looks more like an opsec (who are not meeting this time) or  
>> v6ops
>> subject.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:02 AM
>> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>> Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] Reminder: OPS-DIR working lunch
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>> Could this be discussed at OPS-DIR working lunch?
> <Recommendation of IPv6 Security work--on the flight-2.ppt>
> <ATT4180184.txt>
>