Subject: [OPSEC] IETF 76 draft minutes

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:18:12 -0800

Tue 10 Nov 2009 15:20:06 JST

Chairs Joel Jaeggli, Joe Abley
Note-taker Joe Abley

0. Agenda-Bashing

No changes to the agenda

1. WG status - WG Chair
Tue 10 Nov 2009 15:23:54 JST

Joel Jaeggli:
	(per slides.)

2. Nanog ISP security BOF report - WG Chair

Joel:
	wg activities and outreach. (per slides).

Fernando Gont:
	Request from ron for optioned packets and port filtering?

	The IP security document covers some aspects about optioned
	packets, with some discussion of what would happen if you
	discarded based on presence of particular options.

Joel:
	yes, ip security document covers some of the implications,
	but perhaps a little more could be done, especially in the case
	of internal applications for ip options that are exploitable
	from external sources.

Fernando:
	separate document on optioned packets is warranted?

Joel:
	no, not convinced of that.

Ron Bonica:
	I think a separate document is warranted. I wanted something
	I could point at particularly in response to documents from
	people proposing new options.

Fernando:
	I can volunteer for that one. it's related to the work that
	was being done with ip security draft.

Ron:
	I will introduce you to the other two people who offered to work
	on it.

Fernando:
	perfect.

Joel:
	There are also opportunities to discuss this in the context of
	ipv6.

Warren Kumari:
	(on another point of the NANOG outreach)
	fib management is not the only reason why people use defaults.
	it's also fairly commonly used to accommodate micro-convergence
	events.

Joel:
	it may not help in the case of a micro-loop, but micro-loop
	into macro-loop means at least the packets are going somewhere.

Warren:
	Also accidental defaults.

Joel:
	Yes, default left over from installation, perhaps that one
	can be chalked up to incompetence.

3. Revised, draft-ietf-opsec-ip-security - Fernando Gont
Tue 10 Nov 2009 15:48:11 JST

Fernando:
	(per slides)

Tue 10 Nov 2009 15:50:48 JST

Joel:
	My understanding that we were aiming for this to be
	informational?

Fernando:
	yes.

Joel:
	Last call has a way of gelling peoples' ideas, plan to last-	
	call the document soon after the next rev.

Ron:
	I think informational is right. normally wglc then iesg then
	done. since the document is important, however, I think internet-
	wide last-call is sensible. any objection to that?

Fernando:
	No objection to that.

4. Revised, draft-ietf-opsec-icmp-filtering - Fernando Gont
Tue 10 Nov 2009 15:53:20 JST

Fernando:
	(per slides)

Ron:
	Informational is much easier than bcp. Benefit of bcp is that
	it comes with a club. if you publish a draft as bcp, a later
	draft that contradicts it will have trouble. in this case I
	can't imagine a draft that would seek to contradict this advice.
	recommend stay with informational.

Joel:
	This document does not prescribe things, it aims to describe
	consequences.

Fernando:
	What about how to address the problem of packets aimed at
	the device?

Ron:
	I would not include that. there is other work going on in more
	general, not just icmp, that will cover that.

Joel:
	Also there are corner cases, e.g. a packet aimed through
	with a ttl that expires, e.g. traceroute. what to do with packets
	that are aimed at a device is a more local policy issue.

5. Revised, draft-ietf-opsec-routing-protocols-crypto-issues
Tue 10 Nov 2009 16:00:06 JST

Joel:
	(per slides)
	"history", "changes"

Joel:
	Intention to wglc the -02.

6. Others?
Tue 10 Nov 2009 16:04:40 JST

Meeting concludes.