Subject: [nemo] meeting minutes for the special NEMO security session

From: "S. Felix Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:56:42 -0800

The meeting minutes for the special NEMO security session in 59th IETF

Attendee:

Hosik Cho		Seoul National University
			[email-masked]
Seongho Cho		Seoul National University
			[email-masked]
Thierry Ernst		WIDE/Keio University
			[email-masked]
Souhwan Jung		Soongsil University
			[email-masked]
T.J. Kniveton		Nokia
			[email-masked]
Hong-Yon Lach		Motorola Labs
			[email-masked]
Nicolas Montavont	ULP-LSIIT
			[email-masked]
Chan Wah Ng		Panasonic Singapore Lab.
			[email-masked]
S. Felix Wu		University of California,Davis
			[email-masked]
			(the minute taker)

Purpose of this meeting:

Many NEMO contributors have recognized the importance of security
analysis for the standards being developed under this working
group. To avoid any significant duplication as well as to cover the
security space completely, a few of us got together at 11:00 a.m. on
March 4th, 2004 during the Seoul IETF meeting. This document tries to
catch the issues as well as the rough consensus among the
participants.

TJ:
>From our experience in dealing with security issues in MIPv6
(which still has security problems unsolved), it is better and
important to consider the security issues under NEMO from the
beginning. Please note that the scope of the security analysis works
under NEMO can be broader to cover the general security issues in
mobility in today's Internet.

Felix:
I feel that the security analysis task is important for several
reasons. It certainly can help to analyze the potential weaknesses in
the current drafts. But also, a good document about the security
analysis work will help us later to expand and to re-evaluate the
security related issues.

Hongyon:
The Motorola group is very interested in the security protection
issues related to mobility, such as protocol protection and DDoS. We
are examining the security issues in the basic NEMO support.

Felix:
Maybe we should first study the "security requirements" for the
protection results in the basic NEMO support such as "what should
the NEMO basic support achieve related to security."

TJ:
"Requirement" may not be the best term to describe what we are
trying to do here, and maybe we should use the term
"philosophy". We need to clearly clarify the general approach
("philosophy") for securing the NEMO basic support.

Felix:
I suggest that, under NEMO, we have four different areas related to
security: basic support (including MIPv6 and IPsec related issues),
Nested NEMO, Multi-homing, and operational consideration.

Thierry:
We should first consider, explicitly, scenarios for the most basic
NEMO configuration. I.e., no nested and no multihoming.

???: (need a confirmation from TJ)
IRTF might have a group (or is forming a working group) covering cover
the subject for mobile network security. The first step for us (NEMO)
is to cover the "basic" security issues, and then later we can
worry about more advanced issues.

Immediately, this is what we need to do:
(1). We need to have "one pass" to examine whether the current
     basic support draft is self-contained and sufficient for the
     security protection.
(2). If there are issues not being covered in the basic support draft
     (such as the multi-homing issue), then we need to explicitly
     mention it in the draft. This is very important for the IESG to
     evaluate the NEMO basic support.

These should be done very soon (within a week hopefully). Whether to
have a separate draft to document this task depends on whether the
basic support draft can cover the issues sufficiently.

Souhwan:
There are several interesting security cases in our new draft.

Conclusions:

(1). We need to examine the security issues for the basic support very
     quickly (one week), and we need to make the document explicit
     regarding the security issues for IESG. We would like to emphasize
     that security in NEMO Basic Support MUST BE proof-checked ***ASAP***
     (for the 'most basic configurations').

(2). Alex/S. Cho/TJ/Souhwan are all interested to analyze the security
    of NEMO basic support (one more pass), while, somewhat implicitly,
    Felix (??) or others will find somebody in the security area (as an
    outsider) to help the NEMO group for this task as well.

---

From: "S. Felix Wu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:56:42 -0800

Attendee:

Purpose of this meeting:

Felix:

Hongyon:

Felix:

TJ:

Felix:

Thierry:

Souhwan:

Conclusions:

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:24:57 -0800

> worry about more advanced issues.

This was a comment about the MOBOPTS group, which is looking at 
mobility research issues within the IRTF. It is already formed and met 
for the first time at IETF 59. They may be interested in that group to 
look at more general and longer-term security problems.

TJ

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:24:57 -0800

TJ