Re: [storm] iSCSI: New IPsec security requirements

Mallikarjun Chadalapaka <cbm@chadalapaka.com> Thu, 13 October 2011 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cbm@chadalapaka.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A978E21F8BA6 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kF9ml+aP8jWz for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snt0-omc3-s24.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc3-s24.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B91521F8B84 for <storm@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SNT131-DS14 ([65.55.90.136]) by snt0-omc3-s24.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:24:10 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.94]
X-Originating-Email: [cbm@chadalapaka.com]
Message-ID: <SNT131-ds14008F7A7CF11722D87D01A0E00@phx.gbl>
From: Mallikarjun Chadalapaka <cbm@chadalapaka.com>
To: <david.black@emc.com>, <storm@ietf.org>
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058CFE6297@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058CFE6297@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:24:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQC5sW98KcfVaqXyRDrPoV0OUVJRPZegiZjg
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2011 22:24:10.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[D44E6790:01CC89F6]
Subject: Re: [storm] iSCSI: New IPsec security requirements
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:24:10 -0000

Thanks for the follow-up David!   That sounds reasonable to me.  I will wait
for the new text to get it into the draft getting now ready for submission
(I have published a draft copy to the mailing list earlier this week).

Mallikarjun


-----Original Message-----
From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
david.black@emc.com
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:55 PM
To: storm@ietf.org
Subject: [storm] iSCSI: New IPsec security requirements

I've checked with the ipsecme WG and the responsible Security AD.

The upshot is that there's still a lot of 2400-series RFC IPsec out there,
and hence the appropriate IPsec requirements for iSCSI are:

	- MUST implement IPsec, 2400-series RFCs (IPsec v2, IKEv1).
	- SHOULD implement IPsec, 4300-series RFCs (IPsec v3, IKEv2).

The MUST is for interoperability and to acknowledge what's out there; the
SHOULD is to encourage implementers to move forward. 

Now I need to go write the actual text to go into the draft, and the main
iSCSI draft will have to update RFC 3723 as part of this.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
storm mailing list
storm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm