Re: [Smart] Future of SMART

Kirsty and Kathleen,

I am sorry to hear that.   You and Kathleen have done excellent work for a
very important topic.   I will follow your next steps with great interest.

Nalini

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:24 PM Kirsty P <Kirsty.p=
40ncsc.gov.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I'm sorry to say that SMART is not holding a formal meeting at IETF 105 in
> Montreal; the charter we
> proposed was not viewed as defining a programme of research activity
> suitable for the IRTF. Despite
> the attendance and interest at SMART's previous meeting at IETF 104 in
> Prague*, acknowledgement that
> the IETF’s current security threat model is outdated and under-researched,
> and contributions of
> new academic research on SMART topics, it has not been possible to secure
> a formal meeting at IETF
> 105 as a proposed IRTF RG.
>
> We plan to arrange a side-meeting in Montreal to review the drafts
> currently in development and
> discuss the way forward.  Work on the CLESS draft and research projects
> from CARIS2 will continue
> and the shape they take may guide the decision for a way forward.
>
> We will continue to welcome the knowledge and experience of cyber security
> experts on this list and
> encourage these experts to attend IETF and IRTF meetings because their
> expertise is not commonplace
> there.  This means both assisting with developing drafts towards the goals
> of SMART and outcomes
> from CARIS2, but also integrating into working and research groups to
> assist with security
> improvements in developing work. For those who are already regular
> participants in the IRTF, we hope
> that you will welcome newcomers who are experts in their own field and
> learn from what they
> contribute. We encourage experts to post individual drafts on the topic of
> detecting and mitigating
> cyber attack threats, and where these drafts have no natural home in the
> IETF (and struggle to find
> one), to cross-post to SMART. SMART and its base will still aim to bring
> the cyber defence viewpoint
> and expertise into IETF groups more consistently.
>
> Finally, a minor success. When I (Kirsty) first attended an IETF meeting,
> one concerning security
> aspect that stood out for me was the IETF view of the Internet threat
> model, which bizarrely doesn't
> major on the vast scale and variety of cyber attacks we see today. Now
> there are two drafts
> discussing this threat model and its need to be updated:
> draft-arkko-arch-internet-threat-model and
> draft-farrell-etm. Both drafts start a needed analysis of Internet
> security, which will need to be
> supported by robust research. Although the IRTF will not presently support
> the creation of a RG to
> stimulate research in this area, the SMART non-working group mailing list
> can still be a place to
> bring and share evidence on protocol-enabled attacks.
>
> Thank you to everyone who continues to support improving cyber defence on
> the Internet. We hope that
> SMART has started enough conversations that, in future, every person who
> designs a part of the
> Internet will have a solid knowledge of attack defence. Ultimately,
> however SMART work happens and
> whoever leads the effort, the need to improve security and reduce all
> types of attacks (and not
> create new ones!) should be the most important priority for the people who
> design the Internet.
>
> Kirsty & Kathleen
>
>
> *We were the 10th most attended session of the week, with 150 people at
> the meeting and roughly half
> of the room willing to work on these topics.
> This information is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
> (FOIA) and may be exempt under other UK information legislation. Refer any
> FOIA queries to ncscinfoleg@ncsc.gov.uk
> --
> Smart mailing list
> Smart@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/smart
>

-- 
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com