Subject: [i2rs] FW: SDN security and I2RS

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:17:24 -0400

Per the discussion today during the WG meeting, this is the message I sent to the authors of draft-hartman-sdnsec-requirements. This is the background info that was to inform the first draft of I2RS security considerations. We could use feedback both on the initial discussion summarized in the WG Interim, and on whether it makes sense to integrate it into this existing security draft or continue with a standalone draft for I2RS, perhaps with a reference to this draft for additional considerations.

Thanks,

Wes George

Authors: I'm not sure if you've been following the I2RS WG much, but we had an interim meeting not too long ago. The attendees of that group broke up into smaller groups to discuss different things, and I was heading up the group discussing the security model, because I've been clear in my feedback that any effort to directly manipulate the routing system will need to have security as a first-class part of its design from day one, rather than a bolt-on later.

As a result of that discussion, we sketched out the different things we felt were important, and were supposed to produce a draft on it. Meantime, I saw your draft about SDN security requirements come along, and I think that perhaps we should do some collaboration, because there's a decent amount of overlap between what we discussed and what your draft discusses, but it's not complete, and I'd rather not end up with duplicate drafts.

The presentation that resulted from the security discussion is here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2013/04/22/i2rs/slides/slides-interim-2013-i2rs-1-12.pdf

The meeting minutes from the interim are here, and the record of that presentation's discussion starts at the bottom of page 20. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2013/04/22/i2rs/minutes/minutes-interim-2013-i2rs-1

I'd be interested in feedback on whether you think this takes the form of a companion draft, or whether we can incorporate some of these ideas into your existing framework. I think in a way it would be bolstering the existing section 3 (and possibly adding some requirements in section 4). I'd be happy to contribute some text if I can get some guidance on how best to integrate it.

Anything below this line has been added by my company's mail server, I have no control over it.
-----------------

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.