IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] SFC Security

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed, 27 May 2020 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCDB3A0F41; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xo4MPDIYKOVH; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81FC93A0F58; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.67]) by opfednr23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49XGv90DhHz5wVR; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:46:45 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1590598005; bh=9RkIUAdKcL4c2SwGCMaMKvskYtxSobB2rgAMTn0GWv8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=U0CMQIZg2uqrJIi6iFiLpLIg5b9OT1lcBI7bjuvmsln/5rgwNMeyPsf0kEWcmBGhG CxzLSWGTiHr6pdEVHJHPVDmYL71pQimO1H4Fg6rVEBuCOugDfTQToIBITwL0Y93NGM lxvNpS/1vNYgN/9ReF8PEuxXxvgqqHb5UcZsBukDCBNIgTMl2h2wwpiOPi7zVkofAq 3qVZRgD17cJMsDWRnwg07MJAP3BLLZ4FTCWNpya7+EKZ+Od5L+fI0Wmy9Jpfb1kQEe Wedr6w0aff7wiph7KXMx4HnBKr36ZMBKWJkB1yEfOSaw0q+hnCh17WLPUQkp1zxV6z Ro4mFq/jw7KOQ==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.23]) by opfednr03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 49XGv86SfZzDq7W; Wed, 27 May 2020 18:46:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-rebo-sfc-nsh-integrity@ietf.org" <draft-rebo-sfc-nsh-integrity@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sfc] SFC Security
Thread-Index: AQHWNDyhdYdIRXesZE2p3BoAuJreA6i8IJ8A
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 16:46:44 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330314C69E4@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <9c712682-75ee-f6ea-3355-af2271fc0d75@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <9c712682-75ee-f6ea-3355-af2271fc0d75@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/m3HxsbPoWD-K68r9O-Bl8GyN5GY>
Subject: Re: [sfc] SFC Security
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 16:46:57 -0000

Hi Joel, all, 

I do support this effort and commit to work on it if the WG adopts it. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : sfc [mailto:sfc-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern
> Envoyé : mercredi 27 mai 2020 17:36
> À : sfc@ietf.org
> Objet : [sfc] SFC Security
> 
> We as a working group hava milestone which the IESG felt was
> important,
> and which we agreed to work on, to provide security mechanisms for
> NSH.
> 
> We have one individual draft that suggests such mechansims:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rebo-sfc-nsh-integrity/
> 
> Do folks think this is a good start?  A bad start?
> 
> For those folks who would like to be working on other things, the
> chairs
> note that we are very reluctant to engage in new work items until we
> can
> prove we can complete out commitments.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email