Re: [smartpowerdir] Draft for PAP 1

[Vint Cerf <[e-mail]>]

see attached edits/suggestions on Fred's excellent draft

vint



On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Folks: George Arnold and David Su asked me the other day fo a draft to put
> into NIST's Priority Action Plan #1, which is intended to produce a
> recommendation regarding the role of IP in the Smart Grid. The requested
> draft specifies the minimal structure recommended for the use of IP in a
> secure network.
>
> David: I started to write a new draft, and found myself in part generating
> new graphics and text, and in part cribbing a lot from
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ietf-core. I wonder, what stops us
> from using an updated version of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ietf-core as this draft?
>
> What needs to be covered, I think, is a relatively simple set of four
> pictures outlining four basic uses of the IP Protocol Suite:
>
> +-------------------------+
> |       Application       |
> +-----+------+-----+------+
> | TCP | SCTP | UDP | NORM |    Basic IP stack
> +-----+------+-----+------+
> |      Internet Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
> |        Link Layer       |
> +-------------------------+
> |      Physical Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
>
> +-------------------------+
> |       Application       |
> +-----+------+-----+------+
> | TCP | SCTP | UDP | NORM |    IP Stack with IPsec in Transport Mode
> +-----+------+-----+------+    (eg, HIP-like connectivity between two
> systems)
> |    IP Security Layer    |
> +-------------------------+
> |      Internet Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
> |        Link Layer       |
> +-------------------------+
> |      Physical Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
>
> +-------------------------+
> |       Application       |
> +-----+------+-----+------+
> | TCP | SCTP | UDP | NORM |    IP Stack with IPsec in Tunnel Mode
> +-----+------+-----+------+    (IPsec VPN)
> |      Internet Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
> |    IP Security Layer    |
> +-------------------------+
> |      Internet Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
> |        Link Layer       |
> +-------------------------+
> |      Physical Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
>
> +-------------------------+
> |       Application       |
> +------------+------------+
> |   TLS      |   DTLS     |    IP Stack with TLS in the application
> +-----+------+-----+------+    (Secured applications)
> | TCP | SCTP | UDP | NORM |
> +-----+------+-----+------+
> |      Internet Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
> |        Link Layer       |
> +-------------------------+
> |      Physical Layer     |
> +-------------------------+
>
> and then some discussion of the use of the stack, which I think is mostly
> there, along with the use of DNS and DHCP.
>
> I have asked and have not gotten any takers... I would really prefer that
> the security comments in this document were written by a security person.
> The comments I got from the security directorate told me what they thought
> was wrong, but didn't suggest what the right way to say it was, and we want
> to say it in the right way.
>
> In any event, if draft-baker-ietf-core-protocols were cut down to that
> content, it seems to me that it pretty much fills the bill and is a
> reasonable IETF output that in fact could be pulled as text into the SGAC's
> Conceptual Model.
>
> Directorate, would you agree with that? David?