From warren@kumari.net Mon Jan 6 08:38:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4531AE069 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:38:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AyHcsmth2QNi for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:38:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF36F1AE097 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:38:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z12so15731817wgg.3 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:37:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LZRWn8q6LEb3J8h0LezT65yB59rYN1rQtVIOSSRciI0=; b=dHEn917CypuMGfUZjbFhbGlu/yQf7BZuyEyidXhwGDdNYiDaITmn1o3PHUuPXOTpzX u4Nna89qzqiCxjXz78B3P+xqJf5g/6qQOKxMVd+TDu03kZmVC3AUHdBURLasK/Ymkt6j /8oRawz5607QjWIesCY/bZL8ue9+p6252HfIElWjsFZxVsC3VDVR4wBQrk+pV5cMDPdC x0zubChmMvk+MmucQ8/JjPhz4tx+LDCwoi11x0dIbdBYaHpMT2Eeg4ap/iZbDEAIE8+q vS5Quq4ObnKlZh7my4s0VcfixFq2G2Zf/LTwp7g4hrBA5jS1tOr7Q4GqONmEZCdAsOMi XWng== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl67oOAO1kAZ4TPtVnX1JduaMCs5AIKya1DHWA+JHDZHJNs7dW//oOtAduVp7UbLRwQn4hQ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.6.161 with SMTP id c1mr1151168wja.89.1389026272310; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:37:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.54.167 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:37:52 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [98.244.98.35] In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D927A25@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> References: <80f95840f7a649bdb0d1ad2f7bd51fc2@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9A2B514E-613F-4837-9B56-23B020508C1B@arbor.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D8FFB77@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3FB5AA3E-2B83-4DF1-90B5-AABF70C0F874@kumari.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D927A25@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:37:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: Warren Kumari To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4175a38b8cad04ef4fe1a4 Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:38:04 -0000 --047d7b4175a38b8cad04ef4fe1a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) < mbehring@cisco.com> wrote: > Warren, [sorry for late reply] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net] > > Sent: 04 December 2013 18:16 > > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring) > > Cc: Warren Kumari; Dobbins, Roland; opsec@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 > [...] > > I have read all the versions of this document and think that the tone has > > greatly improved, but feel that section 2.5 (Summary) still has a bit too > > much of the "this is a good idea" feel. Personally I think that the > Summary > > section doesn't really add anything to the document and should be > > dropped. > > So I've been told throughout school and uni that a document should have > intro, body and summary; I'm feeling somewhat reluctant to drop a summary, > it just seems wrong. :-) Let's see whether we can get one that "feels" > right. What about: > > Using exclusively link-local addressing on infrastructure links has a > number > of advantages and disadvantages, which are both described in detail > in this document. A network operator can use this document to > evaluate whether using link-local addressing on infrastructure links > is a good idea in the context of his/her network or not. This document > makes no particular recommendation either in favour or against. > > I think this should be balanced, would you agree? > Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile... Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if y'all spelt 'favor' correctly W > > Michael > > > --047d7b4175a38b8cad04ef4fe1a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Michael Behringer (mbehring) <m= behring@cisco.com> wrote:
Warren, [sorry for late reply]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warre= n@kumari.net]
> Sent: 04 December 2013 18:16
> To: Michael Behringer (mbehring)
> Cc: Warren Kumari; Dobbins, Roland; = opsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05
[...]
> I have read all the versions of this document and think that the tone = has
> greatly improved, but feel that section 2.5 (Summary) still has a bit = too
> much of the "this is a good idea" feel. Personally I think t= hat the Summary
> section doesn't really add anything to the document and should be<= br> > dropped.

So I've been told throughout school and uni that a document shoul= d have intro, body and summary; I'm feeling somewhat reluctant to drop = a summary, it just seems wrong. :-) =A0Let's see whether we can get one= that "feels" right. What about:

=A0 =A0Using exclusively link-local addressing on infrastructure links has = a number
=A0 =A0of advantages and disadvantages, which are both described in detail<= br> =A0 =A0in =A0this document. A network operator can use this document to
=A0 =A0evaluate whether using link-local addressing on infrastructure links=
=A0 =A0is a good idea in the context of his/her network or not. This docume= nt
=A0 =A0makes no particular recommendation either in favour or against.

I think this should be balanced, would you agree?

=
Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar= made this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile...

Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even bett= er if y'all spelt 'favor' correctly <winks and runs away>=

W
=A0

Michael



--047d7b4175a38b8cad04ef4fe1a4-- From mbehring@cisco.com Mon Jan 6 08:45:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19891AE0C1 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:45:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FbYIaWqh9lGc for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:45:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DBB1AE0C3 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:45:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=669; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389026715; x=1390236315; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QvoTnMDjqVBPx5XOPhYFNheRLbzy41iNVvCF+7grjd0=; b=ZqZVj337Haq/PfrxZQx8yX1cdxJ8c/+qB/ni9JTd1NN9uR71Taq3pi1t 6KGqHz7I7Zog+Q/oEfQDTBSu+YcNoVqVmv0dxtSTwA5zv/gU+IZ1dxPaF JTmw7WADr+QOjMnRVbyZQff2ShMZ8uTfSgN82AQoJq05LrjG1bhCvKKD2 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAGvcylKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABYgwuBDblHgQsWdIIlAQEBAwE6PwULAgEIFQEMFAkHMhQRAgQOBQiHdAjDPBeOPCIxB4MkgRMBA6osgy2BcTk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,613,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="10839441" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2014 16:45:14 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s06GjEQ1001536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:45:14 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.19]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:45:14 -0600 From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" To: Warren Kumari Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 Thread-Index: Ac7wWSDptQScqWK/Td6betnie2vjoQAObcUAAA8TlRAAHeyngADc0dXgBZ1ztgAADHVrYA== Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:45:14 +0000 Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B3C4@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> References: <80f95840f7a649bdb0d1ad2f7bd51fc2@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9A2B514E-613F-4837-9B56-23B020508C1B@arbor.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D8FFB77@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3FB5AA3E-2B83-4DF1-90B5-AABF70C0F874@kumari.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D927A25@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.238.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:45:26 -0000 > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net]=20 > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:38 > [...] > Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made thi= s scroll off the bottom=20 > of the mailbox / todo pile... > > Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if y'all s= pelt 'favor' correctly=20 > But we do!! (winks back)=20 OPsec chairs/WG, I believe that was the last open comment on the WGLC. Is t= his correct, or did I miss something?=20 If correct, I'll produce a new version with the new summary, and repost. I = assume this then ends the WGLC and the doc can proceed?=20 Michael From gvandeve@cisco.com Mon Jan 6 08:48:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3611AE0C1 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:48:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PpTFZ93Cofsp for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10341AE04D for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:48:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1157; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389026891; x=1390236491; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zCIm9A5QNSA3+CZZBT3lrQv2mmRnTtAztoXMlk4ipaI=; b=SCXIDPjzEHtbvkIdmvsvhpkzY+vJzfP4fmw5P3uMaiil/fa6crTm4GSI WWSuPtfvjon8y1KQNM7944e3p5c54BDz/CIJScYhER5PssL6iuKvkrLHa JeCxZRokZVFwlqxx5vNpZwn3YCCVACPvUGmYefgDVg+PGc55p5ZluQ2lZ U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFAEPdylKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABYgws4VblIgQsWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsFBwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBycLFAkIAgQBDQUIh3QIDcMnEwSOPCIxBwaDHoETAQOqLIMtgXE5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,613,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="295346645" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2014 16:48:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s06GmBGG004440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:48:11 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.104]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:48:10 -0600 From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" , Warren Kumari Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 Thread-Index: AQHPCv2sAOppFkcIWEq/w50jASY1CZp4S/EA//+b99A= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:48:09 +0000 Message-ID: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240D3A1263@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> References: <80f95840f7a649bdb0d1ad2f7bd51fc2@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9A2B514E-613F-4837-9B56-23B020508C1B@arbor.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D8FFB77@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3FB5AA3E-2B83-4DF1-90B5-AABF70C0F874@kumari.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D927A25@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B3C4@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B3C4@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.171.76] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:48:21 -0000 Our biweekly chair call is next week, We will place this document on the ag= enda at that time. Brgds, G/ -----Original Message----- From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Behringer = (mbehring) Sent: 06 January 2014 17:45 To: Warren Kumari Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net] > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:38 > [...] > Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made=20 > this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile... > > Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if=20 > y'all spelt 'favor' correctly But we do!! (winks back)=20 OPsec chairs/WG, I believe that was the last open comment on the WGLC. Is t= his correct, or did I miss something?=20 If correct, I'll produce a new version with the new summary, and repost. I = assume this then ends the WGLC and the doc can proceed?=20 Michael _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From mbehring@cisco.com Mon Jan 6 08:52:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558DF1AE0F5 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:52:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyS1VfBJsdPG for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:52:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14341AE042 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:52:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1592; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389027163; x=1390236763; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Tr2IsuPtiorrhQRA1jH4KRwrzamJvLZi6il+WPMVy98=; b=IQYj+TS14rtJtKNryZuVVD/WN9nFHUFmpVthipDonKoPhiGBz6uuRqQ6 0zZkxQa6lCAZtNZbFYO1bUiQrijYMvCsZW2cbqkPZf9CcBut8KNNVrQ3c 68pEc8Ah3OvA+vIIYuxZtj2JtaitKih1vl8TNP2wTd9lawUc+UleVCjTM s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFAEzeylKtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABYgws4VblIgQsWdIIlAQEBBAEBATc0CwwEAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCId8DcMeEwSOPCIxBwaDHoETAQOqLIMtgXE5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,613,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="10835692" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2014 16:52:43 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s06GqgKC008280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:52:43 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.19]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:52:42 -0600 From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" To: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" , Warren Kumari Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 Thread-Index: Ac7wWSDptQScqWK/Td6betnie2vjoQAObcUAAA8TlRAAHeyngADc0dXgBZ1ztgAADHVrYP//nzSAgABjfFA= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:52:42 +0000 Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B42A@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> References: <80f95840f7a649bdb0d1ad2f7bd51fc2@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9A2B514E-613F-4837-9B56-23B020508C1B@arbor.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D8FFB77@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3FB5AA3E-2B83-4DF1-90B5-AABF70C0F874@kumari.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D927A25@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B3C4@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240D3A1263@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240D3A1263@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.238.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:52:53 -0000 I suppose best to produce the new version right now? Or should we await the= outcome of that call?=20 Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:48 > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); Warren Kumari > Cc: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 >=20 > Our biweekly chair call is next week, We will place this document on the > agenda at that time. >=20 > Brgds, > G/ >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Behringer (mbehring) > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:45 > To: Warren Kumari > Cc: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 >=20 > > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net] > > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:38 > > [...] > > Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar made > > this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile... > > > > Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if > > y'all spelt 'favor' correctly >=20 > But we do!! (winks back) >=20 > OPsec chairs/WG, I believe that was the last open comment on the WGLC. Is > this correct, or did I miss something? >=20 > If correct, I'll produce a new version with the new summary, and repost. = I > assume this then ends the WGLC and the doc can proceed? >=20 > Michael >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From gvandeve@cisco.com Mon Jan 6 08:54:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06371AE0D0 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:54:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P_CmVYYWhH1Y for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:54:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A7F1AE069 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:54:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1900; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389027246; x=1390236846; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3ZFF86ZBfWpdC7Y8O6Ps/tqant7gzw7RByJJqddxNIs=; b=eJXxGkbzX63JXg2FGTV1u18bbz+tAxRlC+tX/NORcBZseWxblG5roYzs WJw1tBjCxdEiKdtEM3h1RaLKZsejPyK16Cc9ilT9+ClfO1cfwqhfel9U2 L3iMfijyarumFTj4Ztx5t9bRmNUDOGjWG69yax1fYXAkIsvc+Xzx/RuwN Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAFADDfylKtJXHB/2dsb2JhbABYgws4VblIgQwWdIIlAQEBBAEBATc0CwwEAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCId8DcMhEwSOPCIxBwaDHoETAQOqLIMtgXE5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,613,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="295535615" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2014 16:54:05 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s06Gs5Rj012761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:54:05 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.104]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:54:05 -0600 From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" , Warren Kumari Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 Thread-Index: AQHPCv2sAOppFkcIWEq/w50jASY1CZp4S/EA//+b99CAAGYfAP//m4kQ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:54:04 +0000 Message-ID: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240D3A12AA@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> References: <80f95840f7a649bdb0d1ad2f7bd51fc2@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <9A2B514E-613F-4837-9B56-23B020508C1B@arbor.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D8FFB77@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3FB5AA3E-2B83-4DF1-90B5-AABF70C0F874@kumari.net> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D927A25@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B3C4@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240D3A1263@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B42A@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B42A@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.171.76] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:54:17 -0000 I see these efforts as parallel and not exclusive.=20 G/ -----Original Message----- From: Michael Behringer (mbehring)=20 Sent: 06 January 2014 17:53 To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve); Warren Kumari Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: RE: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 I suppose best to produce the new version right now? Or should we await the= outcome of that call?=20 Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:48 > To: Michael Behringer (mbehring); Warren Kumari > Cc: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 >=20 > Our biweekly chair call is next week, We will place this document on=20 > the agenda at that time. >=20 > Brgds, > G/ >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael=20 > Behringer (mbehring) > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:45 > To: Warren Kumari > Cc: opsec@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Review of draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-05 >=20 > > From: Warren Kumari [mailto:warren@kumari.net] > > Sent: 06 January 2014 17:38 > > [...] > > Sorry for the large delay in responding -- vacations and similar=20 > > made this scroll off the bottom of the mailbox / todo pile... > > > > Yup, that covers it well enough for me... would be even better if=20 > > y'all spelt 'favor' correctly >=20 > But we do!! (winks back) >=20 > OPsec chairs/WG, I believe that was the last open comment on the WGLC.=20 > Is this correct, or did I miss something? >=20 > If correct, I'll produce a new version with the new summary, and=20 > repost. I assume this then ends the WGLC and the doc can proceed? >=20 > Michael >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jan 6 09:13:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 232BA1AE112; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:13:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mI8E8x6W0SCr; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F53B1AE042; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:13:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140106171354.1797.64065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:13:54 -0800 Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:13:56 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP = Network Infrastructure Working Group of the IETF. Title : Using Only Link-Local Addressing Inside an IPv6 N= etwork Authors : Michael Behringer Eric Vyncke Filename : draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2014-01-06 Abstract: In an IPv6 network it is possible to use only link-local addresses on infrastructure links between routers. This document discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to help the decision process for a given network. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mbehring@cisco.com Mon Jan 6 09:15:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ADBA1AE112 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:15:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-brtIjVpFGV for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:15:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12561AE110 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 09:15:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2222; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389028542; x=1390238142; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rrnq+9eJIRGpc26OjaFUR3Wqvrnh+rjFVv+ye+sI9l8=; b=ewpaYl8hpIXrIajquVMrFxGB5bvt2l0/rfRL6/+O8oJZsDTh3Z4aKFUA GnaH5L8EbgBsAoU5eh/bW0jxqgz4CZr5rUd/ZG3HAOU52hXavwHEJsZMM n5sP4gTqOZnHxDU04ZuKimuS+5Q7iWiI0fPt3B++UzMMkD9lQNFvK6wcr o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiIGAPDjylKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABYgws4TwaCfrZKGHQWdIIlAQEBBCMRQw4EAgEIEQQBAQMCBh0DAgICMBQBBgEBBQMCBBMIAYd7CAWpTJlbF4EpjTU4BoJpNYETBJlHkGWDLYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,614,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="295552383" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jan 2014 17:15:42 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s06HFgnl014003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:15:42 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.19]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:15:42 -0600 From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" To: "opsec@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt Thread-Index: AQHPCwKssswJPjUyIU6+MiCkgfZ3iJp374jA Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:15:41 +0000 Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D93B535@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> References: <20140106171354.1797.60911.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140106171354.1797.60911.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.238.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSEC] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 17:15:53 -0000 T1BzZWMgV0csIA0KDQpUaGlzIHZlcnNpb24gaGFzIHRoZSBuZXcgc3VtbWFyeSBhbmQgc2hvdWxk IGNvbnRhaW4gYWxsIHRoZSBjb21tZW50cyByZWNlaXZlZCBkdXJpbmcgV0dMQy4gUGxlYXNlIGxl dCB1cyBrbm93IGlmIHdlIG1pc3NlZCBzb21ldGhpbmcuIA0KDQpNaWNoYWVsDQoNCg0KPiAtLS0t LU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcg W21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo+IFNlbnQ6IDA2IEphbnVhcnkgMjAx NCAxODoxNA0KPiBUbzogTWljaGFlbCBCZWhyaW5nZXIgKG1iZWhyaW5nKTsgRXJpYyBWeW5ja2Ug KGV2eW5ja2UpOyBNaWNoYWVsIEJlaHJpbmdlcg0KPiAobWJlaHJpbmcpOyBFcmljIFZ5bmNrZSAo ZXZ5bmNrZSkNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1p ZXRmLW9wc2VjLWxsYS1vbmx5LTA2LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1E LCBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW9wc2VjLWxsYS1vbmx5LTA2LnR4dCBoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkN Cj4gc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IE1pY2hhZWwgQmVocmluZ2VyIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYg cmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCj4gDQo+IE5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW9wc2VjLWxsYS1vbmx5DQo+IFJl dmlzaW9uOgkwNg0KPiBUaXRsZToJCVVzaW5nIE9ubHkgTGluay1Mb2NhbCBBZGRyZXNzaW5nIElu c2lkZSBhbiBJUHY2IE5ldHdvcmsNCj4gRG9jdW1lbnQgZGF0ZToJMjAxNC0wMS0wNg0KPiBHcm91 cDoJCW9wc2VjDQo+IFBhZ2VzOgkJMTANCj4gVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3BzZWMtbGxhLW9ubHktDQo+IDA2LnR4 dA0KPiBTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1vcHNlYy1sbGEtb25seS8NCj4gSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5p ZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3BzZWMtbGxhLW9ubHktMDYNCj4gRGlmZjogICAgICAg ICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91cmwyPWRyYWZ0LWlldGYtb3BzZWMtbGxh LW9ubHktMDYNCj4gDQo+IEFic3RyYWN0Og0KPiAgICBJbiBhbiBJUHY2IG5ldHdvcmsgaXQgaXMg cG9zc2libGUgdG8gdXNlIG9ubHkgbGluay1sb2NhbCBhZGRyZXNzZXMgb24NCj4gICAgaW5mcmFz dHJ1Y3R1cmUgbGlua3MgYmV0d2VlbiByb3V0ZXJzLiAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBkaXNjdXNzZXMg dGhlDQo+ICAgIGFkdmFudGFnZXMgYW5kIGRpc2FkdmFudGFnZXMgb2YgdGhpcyBhcHByb2FjaCB0 byBoZWxwIHRoZSBkZWNpc2lvbg0KPiAgICBwcm9jZXNzIGZvciBhIGdpdmVuIG5ldHdvcmsuDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9m IG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZg0KPiBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIHVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXpl ZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQo+IA0K PiBUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From wesley.george@twcable.com Wed Jan 8 06:25:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E531AE3ED for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:25:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.303 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iNWNxB6NLI-K for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:25:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdcipgw02.twcable.com (cdcipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.91.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 086631AE3E5 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 06:25:25 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.10 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,624,1384318800"; d="scan'208";a="56168231" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.10]) by cdcipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 08 Jan 2014 09:24:57 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.79]) by PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.10]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:25:16 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: "opsec@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:25:17 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt Thread-Index: Ac8MfXMWuHOCD/cbSYurP9s3Jk5zvw== Message-ID: References: <20140106171354.1797.64065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140106171354.1797.64065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:25:27 -0000 SeKAmXZlIHJldmlld2VkIHRoZSBsYXRlc3QgdmVyc2lvbiwgYW5kIEkgaGF2ZSB0d28gY29tbWVu dHMuDQpGaXJzdCwgd2hpbGUgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBoYXMgY29tZSBhIGxvbmcgd2F5IGluIGF2 b2lkaW5nIGENCuKAnHJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9u4oCdIHRvIHVzZSBMTEEtb25seSwgSSBzdGlsbCBh bSBjb25jZXJuZWQgYXQgcHV0dGluZyB0aGlzDQpmb3J3YXJkIGFzIGEgV0cgZHJhZnQsIGFzIGl0 IHN0aWxsIHNlcnZlcyBhcyBpbXBsaWNpdCBJRVRGIGVuZG9yc2VtZW50IG9mDQpzb21ldGhpbmcg SSBzdGlsbCB2aWV3IGFzIGEgYmFkIGlkZWEuIEl04oCZcyB0aGUgbGFzdCBJ4oCZbGwgc2F5IGFi b3V0IGl0IGFuZA0KSeKAmWxsIGdvIHdpdGggV0cgY29uc2Vuc3VzIG9uIHRoZSBtYXR0ZXIsIGJ1 dCBJ4oCZZCBtdWNoIHJhdGhlciBzZWUgdGhpcyBhcw0KYW4gaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBkcmFmdC4NCg0K U2Vjb25kLCB5b3UgYnJpZWZseSBtZW50aW9uIHNvbWUgY29tcGxpY2F0aW9ucyB3aXRoIFJTVlAt VEUgaW4geW91cg0KY2F2ZWF0cyBzZWN0aW9uLiBUaGVyZSBpcyBjdXJyZW50bHkgYSBkcmFmdCB3 ZeKAmXJlIGhvcGluZyB0byBnZXQgYWRvcHRlZCBpbg0KdGhlIE1QTFMgV0cgKGRyYWZ0LWdlb3Jn ZS1tcGxzLWlwdjYtb25seS1nYXApIHRoYXQgYW5hbHl6ZXMgdGhlIGdhcHMNCnByZXZlbnRpbmcg b3BlcmF0aW9uIG9mIE1QTFMgb24gYW4gSVB2Ni1vbmx5IG5ldHdvcmsuIFdlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHNv bWUNCmZlZWRiYWNrIGZyb20gTmFnZW5kcmEgS3VtYXIgcG9pbnRpbmcgb3V0IHRoYXQgYW4gYWRk aXRpb25hbCBnYXAgaXMNCmNyZWF0ZWQgaWYgb25lIHVzZXMgTExBLW9ubHksIGJ1dCB0aGUgYXV0 aG9ycyBoYXZlIG1hZGUgdGhlIGRlY2lzaW9uIHRvDQp0cnkgdG8gYXZvaWQgZGlzY3Vzc2luZyBk cmFmdCBpbXBsZW1lbnRhdGlvbnMgaW4gdGhhdCBnYXAgYW5hbHlzaXMsIG9yDQplbHNlIHRoZSBk cmFmdCB3aWxsIG5ldmVyIGJlIGZpbmlzaGVkLiBXZSBhcmUgaW5zdGVhZCBlbmNvdXJhZ2luZyBk cmFmdA0KYXV0aG9ycyB0byBjb25zaWRlciBJUHY2LW9ubHkgb3BlcmF0aW9uIGluIHRoZWlyIGRy YWZ0cywgYW5kIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5DQpleGlzdGluZyBnYXBzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGRlcGVu ZHMgb24gZ2V0dGluZyByZXNvbHZlZCwgb3IgbWFraW5nDQpjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIGFkZHJlc3MgYW55 IGdhcHMgYXMgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUuIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgeW91IG1heSB3YW50IHRvDQppbmNsdWRl IHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHJldmlld2Vy4oCZcyBzdWdnZXN0ZWQgdGV4dCBpbiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0Og0K UlNWUC1URQ0KW0ktRC5pZXRmLW9wc2VjLWxsYS1vbmx5XSBkZXNjcmliZXMgdGhlIGFwcHJvYWNo IG9mIGVuYWJsaW5nIGxpbmstDQogICBsb2NhbCBhZGRyZXNzZXMgYWxvbmUgaW4gdHJhbnNpdCBs aW5rcy4gIFRoaXMgcmFpc2VzIGEgbmVlZCBmb3IgbmV3DQogICBTdWJPYmplY3QgdG8gY2Fycnkg YSBjb21iaW5hdGlvbiBvZiBSb3V0ZXJJRCBhbmQgTGluay9JbnRlcmZhY2UgSUQgaW4NCiAgIFJT VlAgUEFUSCBhbmQgUkVTViBtZXNzYWdlLg0KDQogICBHYXA6IE1pbm9yLCBOZXcgU3ViT2JqZWN0 IGZvciBSU1ZQIG1lc3NhZ2UgZm9yIHNwZWNpZmljIElQdjYgZGVwbG95bWVudC4NCg0KSWYgdGhl IFdHIGRlY2lkZXMgdG8gbW92ZSB0aGlzIC0wNiB2ZXJzaW9uIG9uIGZvciBJRVRGIExDIGNvbnNp ZGVyYXRpb24sDQp0aGlzIGlzIHByb2JhYmx5IHNvbWV0aGluZyB0aGF0IGNhbiBiZSBhZGRlZCB3 aGVuIHRoZSBhdXRob3JzIGFyZQ0KaW5jb3Jwb3JhdGluZyBsYXN0IGNhbGwgY29tbWVudHMuDQoN Cg0KVGhhbmtzLA0KDQpXZXMgR2VvcmdlDQoNCg0KQW55dGhpbmcgYmVsb3cgdGhpcyBsaW5lIGhh cyBiZWVuIGFkZGVkIGJ5IG15IGNvbXBhbnnigJlzIG1haWwgc2VydmVyLCBJDQpoYXZlIG5vIGNv bnRyb2wgb3ZlciBpdC4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQoNCg0KVGhpcyBFLW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBvZiBp dHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgbWF5IGNvbnRhaW4gVGltZSBXYXJuZXIgQ2FibGUgcHJvcHJpZXRhcnkg aW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIHdoaWNoIGlzIHByaXZpbGVnZWQsIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCwgb3Igc3ViamVj dCB0byBjb3B5cmlnaHQgYmVsb25naW5nIHRvIFRpbWUgV2FybmVyIENhYmxlLiBUaGlzIEUtbWFp bCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCBzb2xlbHkgZm9yIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgb3IgZW50 aXR5IHRvIHdoaWNoIGl0IGlzIGFkZHJlc3NlZC4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBub3QgdGhlIGludGVuZGVk IHJlY2lwaWVudCBvZiB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCwgeW91IGFyZSBoZXJlYnkgbm90aWZpZWQgdGhhdCBh bnkgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbiwgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uLCBjb3B5aW5nLCBvciBhY3Rpb24gdGFrZW4g aW4gcmVsYXRpb24gdG8gdGhlIGNvbnRlbnRzIG9mIGFuZCBhdHRhY2htZW50cyB0byB0aGlzIEUt bWFpbCBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBwcm9oaWJpdGVkIGFuZCBtYXkgYmUgdW5sYXdmdWwuIElmIHlvdSBo YXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5k ZXIgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkgYW5kIHBlcm1hbmVudGx5IGRlbGV0ZSB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgYW5kIGFu eSBjb3B5IG9mIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGFuZCBhbnkgcHJpbnRvdXQuDQo= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jan 13 16:18:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E24ED1AE1D4; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:18:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7VSHmdweqfxM; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:18:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6911ACC83; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:18:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140114001834.30585.67925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:18:34 -0800 Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-02.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:18:36 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP = Network Infrastructure Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP operations and security Authors : Jerome Durand Ivan Pepelnjak Gert Doering Filename : draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-02.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2014-01-13 Abstract: BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) is the protocol almost exclusively used in the Internet to exchange routing information between network domains. Due to this central nature, it is important to understand the security measures that can and should be deployed to prevent accidental or intentional routing disturbances. This document describes measures to protect the BGP sessions itself (like TTL, MD5, control plane filtering) and to better control the flow of routing information, using prefix filtering and automatization of prefix filters, max-prefix filtering, AS path filtering, route flap dampening and BGP community scrubbing. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From kkumar@google.com Thu Jan 16 10:58:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64E61A1F5E for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:58:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ehZ7WrH9XwEW for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AAE71A1F56 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id tp5so4335705ieb.10 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:57:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=SLGs7OZdtyseAuddtcDoJxlMysoHkvkd7Koa7Kfzq/w=; b=GzAF0i/ErIcF9HRNzxPKLWFt1pyLZQYCQy8ZkqBYvdZhv/qSzPZlTPgH9HnwyqrePu yJF58IUyjegOtRFjyWD3rkKZQphdeqzYIxwvImjKUtTRmlYEi5hgjYAuD9ovtsXxNr1P LwURn6qfmkyuV8mk95d7ruuIB+V9AAEg73GIA8CtMgoYSANA02y1pyZZjPyhdj0KIgwR O9X16SKbad7j0O4NMea8cpBnBJKtwuK+tU8Cas9ZI3YhOtUCy6HskuHNvxx79qcvnhoq UNYqNDwKU9ilogLHyUXmGF8an5S1nJBzzl4CyZyeE1TS3kobbCJyvaqObZoNE97x04w6 7S9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=SLGs7OZdtyseAuddtcDoJxlMysoHkvkd7Koa7Kfzq/w=; b=ASn+p8lopAba19xqgpyWQ3HswZ8UmPR26VBafiR0y78joDvORC9TyKM04bgCvUlymN yKRu5gG3Q6kr2uJOhl/r71/dErY3OdKijyVDT/Q5ZL23KNpGUE277sTkDMYxSF4bBRo+ 51HiOmDpMDIAjBk2JmgA5lieAIJzxkFk5RyzNKxfY9NioyseWjzwwTI4EnBPTrQ5lqZ0 4hx8kogCUxcYC3EDzg0z0wgOOouFEO+zScYAEnrQYzx/IvMLZl9u0WKTQt77qtp9NV9s 0A469CgSzS/vum5IRDSi4o/tzqftzK7goAQLEBKwQKq8hNlr6ZHvr+hPLQs2zlOR4muu cTBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnv5MVHHfuGaa5pyHNwAV0KPPPFqD6HCwsZ32jZMCGapqh2HYQBoct+DxH3xRmd3qSsfOGcqubc9d1cm+UVt60lbtqN3i3wbdZ7sTQtzirV5Ggci7BMGKWEEZ2n4jiQr6gezKC0qwGZPfLCAEm0mxM/xUD95cPOtMyT9pJlHuI65XXX6wyvJLpcbX2WhEL1fO8Td8T4 X-Received: by 10.50.138.98 with SMTP id qp2mr11542305igb.27.1389898668098; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:57:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.240.168 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:57:27 -0800 (PST) From: KK Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:57:27 -0800 Message-ID: To: "opsec@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c49662e04e04f01b005f Subject: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:58:02 -0000 --001a1134c49662e04e04f01b005f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Opsec WG, We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. There haven=E2=80=99t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little disc= ussion on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secretariat easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It would be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter. Regards, KK and Gunter --001a1134c49662e04e04f01b005f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Opsec WG,


We need to request a m= eeting timeslot for London by 17th January. There haven=E2=80=99t been any = major updates to any of the drafts and little discussion on-list since IETF= 88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secretariat easier, our current= thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for IETF89. However, before d= oing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It would be good to hear from you = and get some guidance on this matter.


Regards,

= KK and Gunter


--001a1134c49662e04e04f01b005f-- From joelja@bogus.com Thu Jan 16 11:03:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B021AC3FA for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:03:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OvoinGzlwwHC for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:03:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FAB1A802D for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mb-aye.local (c-50-174-18-221.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.174.18.221]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0GJ2w6e038166 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:02:59 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <52D82CDD.6060903@bogus.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:02:53 -0800 From: joel jaeggli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/27.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KK , "opsec@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uWTmuJDJ8tJvRfoKVuDwm7pJOFBtF5iig" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:02:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:03:14 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --uWTmuJDJ8tJvRfoKVuDwm7pJOFBtF5iig Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote: > Dear Opsec WG, >=20 > We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. There= > haven=92t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little discus= sion > on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secretari= at > easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for > IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It wo= uld > be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter. If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and then cance= l. > Regards, >=20 > KK and Gunter >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec >=20 --uWTmuJDJ8tJvRfoKVuDwm7pJOFBtF5iig Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlLYLN0ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrKPhwCghseQp44Ik0/7viW551hgIoA/ htwAn02fg3K/UtgPvnkw7gmAmkMfry+U =zTeK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uWTmuJDJ8tJvRfoKVuDwm7pJOFBtF5iig-- From kkumar@google.com Thu Jan 16 11:14:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FE971A1F61 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:14:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1k0fBW3w0dZa for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:14:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512DC1A1F5E for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:14:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id at1so1231989iec.25 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:14:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=XzO257GVcEfShPtzZ5mzhfu2O6qtYeHl7/ezXG1C9rg=; b=RzPW+43sy5WHIpE8QLdFvQCEHRBYsym1+NUbDBM3YfnnEQOW0wUTLptyrXcPa/CMnS ogoFsO7OQzlw2x1CU1rJh5Fon8MDRrOH9gpq+4s/qEjxqAMZmqGuhICSMZfsVJz7p1BF MTzGlNP2fbpZU46UIbU3rKanW7SCpVaPbbIUPilDGRCYmGB6LqpBXgNHRTwcMtPFgJ8w FYhyjbSlpDxILC2tUAnmUsczNQbOy+q7wbcWLJYuRl7gQ6juJ2/jBet2FeyEKMafMB7c jeBJ0Fc3jl55swSoFdL6YqQ3VEWeRZKZLTd0e1MeOTY/jJhD+FVn4iuchE8k8x/muLRl rbog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=XzO257GVcEfShPtzZ5mzhfu2O6qtYeHl7/ezXG1C9rg=; b=YJr1kmds3ER2r3BhDx9el8d6aUenxD7k/zhajzQElvGS6NVL1zIOOexrmNzjUXtceZ HbOHrFYv5JPz148MgQotDoWKwEW2EI4dnhzcQQjme3gtOZiBkdWEqkMYNY66Y+Coc4/B 1ZF9FZJoJBPgRTFqjSfWzzjFJqv3QaoOhysrP22+acI1H6z8uVBIm5+01JZlAY1uS266 ZmtapeUsXFgqMGRJRT7ZxrD041Zbi72EQXmbK2kpMVsx7phR/jtEH+LASyPUTe8iVAzm W9fil/YVkE/8FglPjD+vIl63vUmsd5vSIvGTYeAFkeoGu8stCxoptTzbzdT4lsAm/+da 35+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmg2J4VGQxKEIJLHlwtjDUr5CeAaStUW6XopRc3mYAHcSd5i+49T0Z+NNmxISJKIlbhrDFeYz9WSPkGDzZRyPUhm2olcl3xU1f+/nYGi5d3y24uAMBboAKO8hshn67o6X99xAtCbGMNOOpRnQ58xiznRgoQz3GTvb6rgvBcB5b+BfLgc1Xm/PZ2mztmJC+ZvpxHuKDW X-Received: by 10.50.136.201 with SMTP id qc9mr11548447igb.11.1389899675998; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:14:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.240.168 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:14:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52D82CDD.6060903@bogus.com> References: <52D82CDD.6060903@bogus.com> From: KK Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:14:15 -0800 Message-ID: To: joel jaeggli Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01229ed8763ab804f01b3c91 Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:14:50 -0000 --089e01229ed8763ab804f01b3c91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Joel, We did consider that, but felt that it might be beneficial to save the secretariat some compute cycles up front as they try to avoid conflicts and such. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 1/16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote: > > Dear Opsec WG, > > > > We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. There > > haven=E2=80=99t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little = discussion > > on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secretari= at > > easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for > > IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It > would > > be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter. > > If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and then cance= l. > > > Regards, > > > > KK and Gunter > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSEC mailing list > > OPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > > > > --089e01229ed8763ab804f01b3c91 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey Joel,

We did consider that, but fel= t that it might be beneficial to save the secretariat some compute cycles u= p front as they try to avoid conflicts and such.





On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, joel jae= ggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 1= /16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote:
> Dear Opsec WG,
>
> We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. Ther= e
> haven=E2=80=99t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little= discussion
> on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secretar= iat
> easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for > IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It w= ould
> be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter.

If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and = then cancel.

> Regards,
>
> KK and Gunter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>



--089e01229ed8763ab804f01b3c91-- From joelja@bogus.com Thu Jan 16 11:43:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30ABF1AC421 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:43:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9EIWd3kBhrzt for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B6D1A1F54 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mb-aye.local (c-50-174-18-221.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.174.18.221]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0GJhKRQ038485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:43:20 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com) Message-ID: <52D83653.6020304@bogus.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:43:15 -0800 From: joel jaeggli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/27.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KK References: <52D82CDD.6060903@bogus.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="03oHRuV11VcLTPgFLmQuUCoQDEi7f8Rlk" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:43:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:43:39 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --03oHRuV11VcLTPgFLmQuUCoQDEi7f8Rlk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/16/14, 11:14 AM, KK wrote: > Hey Joel, >=20 > We did consider that, but felt that it might be beneficial to save the > secretariat some compute cycles up front as they try to avoid conflicts= and > such. The first cut is now done by a robot. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, joel jaeggli wrote= : >=20 >> On 1/16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote: >>> Dear Opsec WG, >>> >>> We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. The= re >>> haven=92t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little disc= ussion >>> on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secreta= riat >>> easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for >>> IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It >> would >>> be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter. >> >> If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and then ca= ncel. >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> KK and Gunter >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSEC mailing list >>> OPSEC@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec >>> >> >> >> >=20 --03oHRuV11VcLTPgFLmQuUCoQDEi7f8Rlk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlLYNlMACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrLuhwCaA+NDiejEknAix5VJXNcpSNhe ubwAnAqWEpPH0C0L955kXjbqq+jQD7tC =9yXh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --03oHRuV11VcLTPgFLmQuUCoQDEi7f8Rlk-- From warren@kumari.net Thu Jan 16 11:46:18 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED041AC404 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:46:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ccp-6U3WcF89 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com (mail-we0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C60A1A1F54 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:46:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id t60so3707528wes.9 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:45:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=StkbbzxJgRw7xt5XgRn0kSERtQywARPhXzHAgMC4KBc=; b=HZ3IMFTzZf1Uc7ou8PW2Ji+QS9Q0zSj5+O7g8WlB3jZUAFOUewlEJBMDaQhsANOCF3 uDcolEEJIxVt3r/o/me5E0xQeYKznkFcvrNFzrzNZ4PNsWQZ86hnE7KcWNSTsbGwPPzu 4vrCAVbKos3arbLk5/8/Bol5XeCh6uvcBlpGzC6N0GWlOwD9+QxC2f34hJAFboTKQ1gD 8jvtLkvSB4P4Uk53Dk+XEa9CAw4dSte7OJG8vqv7vI1nszkUBxYKMktBEoqW/6qk6Ko0 dF4NP/LVE2rg//QDd67oMUC+J+eS7hTUDZV4qM5eBor5qFUPVu1PQSruVu/a3R15D7Zx zMHA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkKuLUy7oDxHyb/ktUiFWwJ0mIdUBrcjM0L/yOHz79t/CFwn/0KsxUjUfAIosg9DlbZkhav MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.195.13.164 with SMTP id ez4mr10176396wjd.11.1389901559397; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:45:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.54.167 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:45:59 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [98.244.98.35] In-Reply-To: <52D82CDD.6060903@bogus.com> References: <52D82CDD.6060903@bogus.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:45:59 -0500 Message-ID: From: Warren Kumari To: joel jaeggli Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:46:19 -0000 On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:02 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: > On 1/16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote: >> Dear Opsec WG, >> >> We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. There >> haven=92t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little discuss= ion >> on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secretaria= t >> easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for >> IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It wou= ld >> be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter. > > If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and then cance= l. I requested on back on Dec 3rd: A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Warren Kumari, a Chair of the opsec working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Warren Kumari Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1 Hour Number of Attendees: 75 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: dane opsarea opsawg Second Priority: v6ops Special Requests: One of the chairs also chairs dane, opsawg, opsec. Also part of NOC team, so please nothing first thing on first day. Meetecho --------------------------------------------------------- I was going to to edit it to update the comments and remove the DANE conflict, but as I'm not longer a chair I can no longer edit it... I did remove opsec from DANE, OPSAWG and GAIA conflict lists... W > >> Regards, >> >> KK and Gunter >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSEC mailing list >> OPSEC@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > From kkumar@google.com Thu Jan 16 15:39:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B131AD937 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:39:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rS8031mvRskI for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919151AD8F6 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:39:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x13so4766528ief.9 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:39:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=4ZXajfNa6PrweDy83ROk/UFN3Z8VDb/+5WesVq6pPyk=; b=UlkWedhCp9FqT1JCjhP9SmKS1EFLM2XSeN3VbyqNNIOwFnZoK4/d/NWAj0hWxCYPq4 qx3oJPIsaaBnybXKPouRTgbcFBZY9Xjl8TdLjliPsst/yASLbOAh/d0JG8he3kInbLI1 eRylKljl0xZYjFIAKLX5Sei5zk5sfZKLsbrZ2TEfVKuN6jeS5efDNzWrxoZXRsf3MIOp lzNJN0dWdtS0rtDd/lX8MBJbQItInDRPf/ONe7009/UVbOnEeHFG7f414ThKVT7qMSyr sqApDy5+IQPW4l14EiSn6GMzRb3jOU8mwn8i5av/vxsWqsScp+RYXdEpEbCCF0LQgwM+ yJkQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=4ZXajfNa6PrweDy83ROk/UFN3Z8VDb/+5WesVq6pPyk=; b=l1QqjvS93ZWL/2H5xGIvu6iFC6XuuP7IUc3Wp3fKB+11FNTub0A5UdDfBDySoTjK8L Plf0KIIdHJ6TR833tnUGPQGZuQq67Zkjl4N+cke429hYCoB7svliiXPnwl6vRigK9cyF AkHEk5QudW7F77ejKyTTaqQZF2RY/OVl3uxP/UfDttPOWr+gvzDT2HGT88NwqT9oaPiA Kgim56Vmuk1raMrz6d72gtE2rfgHEWObtq2UR3SPeE10gG3XNofgCmmCDQNXaCxaS8tu EApJsgCoznEAnWKthVYiNk1YnzYgOa4fpy7l6B2rFRbxJI9AZC0xQtxvIXkVO54jkt3H EL4A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkXylm5diMq1n154iFPobTHJECekJbn+758UeZp2U8UffnMnSvtst48/9Jx8WglgcQCwTYiGjpmVGRx//kSIjm4wiDWH1qW8SJigXtF5e40VHl++/6M59RQh74t9+lsBjTkCvlMYH/EX1JzQitvO+ue7R7+rge3Rkk34LVdTvqf85QSPnf/umYXZtRVmqrmXGijOd42 X-Received: by 10.50.232.9 with SMTP id tk9mr12666894igc.27.1389915551993; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:39:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.240.168 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:38:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52D82CDD.6060903@bogus.com> From: KK Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:38:51 -0800 Message-ID: To: Warren Kumari Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042c63a5beb3c404f01eeec3 Cc: "opsec@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:39:26 -0000 --f46d042c63a5beb3c404f01eeec3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Aah! In that case.... Thanks, Warren! On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:02 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > On 1/16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote: > >> Dear Opsec WG, > >> > >> We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. Ther= e > >> haven=E2=80=99t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little > discussion > >> on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the > secretariat > >> easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot for > >> IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. It > would > >> be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter. > > > > If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and then > cancel. > > > I requested on back on Dec 3rd: > > A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Warren > Kumari, a Chair of the opsec working group. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Working Group Name: Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network > Infrastructure > Area Name: Operations and Management Area > Session Requester: Warren Kumari > > Number of Sessions: 1 > Length of Session(s): 1 Hour > Number of Attendees: 75 > Conflicts to Avoid: > First Priority: dane opsarea opsawg > Second Priority: v6ops > > Special Requests: > One of the chairs also chairs dane, opsawg, opsec. > Also part of NOC team, so please nothing first thing on first day. > Meetecho > --------------------------------------------------------- > > I was going to to edit it to update the comments and remove the DANE > conflict, but as I'm not longer a chair I can no longer edit it... > I did remove opsec from DANE, OPSAWG and GAIA conflict lists... > > W > > > > > >> Regards, > >> > >> KK and Gunter > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OPSEC mailing list > >> OPSEC@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSEC mailing list > > OPSEC@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > > --f46d042c63a5beb3c404f01eeec3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Aah! In that case....

Thanks, Warren!


On = Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:= 02 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.co= m> wrote:
> On 1/16/14, 10:57 AM, KK wrote:
>> Dear Opsec WG,
>>
>> We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. = There
>> haven=E2=80=99t been any major updates to any of the drafts and li= ttle discussion
>> on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the secr= etariat
>> easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting timeslot f= or
>> IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with the WG. = It would
>> be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this matter.
>
> If you believe you might need one it is best to request it and then ca= ncel.


I requested on back on Dec 3rd:

A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Warren
Kumari, a Chair of the opsec working group.
---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network
Infrastructure
Area Name: Operations and Management Area
Session Requester: Warren Kumari

Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s): =C2=A01 Hour
Number of Attendees: 75
Conflicts to Avoid:
=C2=A0First Priority: dane opsarea opsawg
=C2=A0Second Priority: v6ops

Special Requests:
=C2=A0 One of the chairs also chairs dane, opsawg, opsec.
Also part of NOC team, so please nothing first thing on first day.
Meetecho
---------------------------------------------------------

I was going to to edit it to update the comments and remove the DANE
conflict, but as I'm not longer a chair I can no longer edit it...
I did remove opsec from DANE, OPSAWG and GAIA conflict lists...

W


>
>> Regards,
>>
>> KK and Gunter
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSEC mailing list
>> OPSEC@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>

--f46d042c63a5beb3c404f01eeec3-- From fgont@si6networks.com Fri Jan 17 06:48:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1961AE109 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:48:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEVKyr1EK7ij for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:48:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFE61AE0F3 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 06:48:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from 30-154-16-190.fibertel.com.ar ([190.16.154.30] helo=[192.168.3.102]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1W4Aid-00052P-Bz; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:48:23 +0100 Message-ID: <52D942A3.5030304@si6networks.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 11:48:03 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KK , "opsec@ietf.org" References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [OPSEC] London IETF Meeting X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:48:39 -0000 Hi, KK, On 01/16/2014 03:57 PM, KK wrote: > > We need to request a meeting timeslot for London by 17th January. There > haven’t been any major updates to any of the drafts and little > discussion on-list since IETF88. In our attempt to make the lives of the > secretariat easier, our current thought is to not request a meeting > timeslot for IETF89. However, before doing so, we wanted to check with > the WG. It would be good to hear from you and get some guidance on this > matter. Please do request a slot, if possible. :-) I'm in the process of updating nd-security based on the discussions we had during the last meeting., and hence this one would benefit from discussion at the meeting. There is at least one additional document I'll be updating this month, which would benefit face to face discussion. I will also be posting two brand new documents... Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From mbehring@cisco.com Fri Jan 17 12:43:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83ECA1ADF78 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:43:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f0BKv1m_tuNV for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:43:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBC71AD0F0 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:43:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4768; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389991400; x=1391201000; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=fmVkCDdvebL5v1O+HOwpHoVtbxb3k9qNsrHtWzkgRmA=; b=FNu6PEyYtx6wt/XmfQh9tno6YxboFqKS6jw7LYqlNYP/nE/omEiEhBh2 djphNs84+BgusF4TYL6/OZMSm0RKXFiREpabpRWXQ+88hLEbQ6NYus3ej +x6OHA3b8h/yV1ilOoZSaxaQPccyJ4wf30/BQeo7CtRCdJhcKowiOc2oV 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjEFAJ+U2VKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABPCoMLgQ6CfrgoGHYWdIIlAQEBAwEjEUoHBAIBCBEEAQEDAgYdAwICAjAUAQgIAgQBEggMh2kIp3OcGxeBKYx6KzgGgmk1gRQEqjiDLYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,675,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="298082303" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2014 20:43:20 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0HKhJDn032120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:43:19 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.19]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:43:19 -0600 From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" To: "George, Wes" , "opsec@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt Thread-Index: AQHPCwK+J7w6Sw5gAUWXyGQqAEI8L5p7SXeAgA4n6MA= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:43:18 +0000 Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D94B2D7@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> References: <20140106171354.1797.64065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.238.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:43:35 -0000 V2VzLCB0aGFua3MgZm9yIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudHMsIGFuZCBzb3JyeSBmb3IgdGhlIGxhdGUgcmVw bHkuLi4gSW5saW5lLi4uDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTog T1BTRUMgW21haWx0bzpvcHNlYy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgR2Vvcmdl LCBXZXMNCj4gU2VudDogMDggSmFudWFyeSAyMDE0IDE1OjI1DQo+IFRvOiBvcHNlY0BpZXRmLm9y Zw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW09QU0VDXSBJLUQgQWN0aW9uOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLW9wc2VjLWxs YS1vbmx5LTA2LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gSeKAmXZlIHJldmlld2VkIHRoZSBsYXRlc3QgdmVyc2lvbiwg YW5kIEkgaGF2ZSB0d28gY29tbWVudHMuDQo+IEZpcnN0LCB3aGlsZSB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGhh cyBjb21lIGEgbG9uZyB3YXkgaW4gYXZvaWRpbmcgYQ0KPiDigJxyZWNvbW1lbmRhdGlvbuKAnSB0 byB1c2UgTExBLW9ubHksIEkgc3RpbGwgYW0gY29uY2VybmVkIGF0IHB1dHRpbmcgdGhpcw0KPiBm b3J3YXJkIGFzIGEgV0cgZHJhZnQsIGFzIGl0IHN0aWxsIHNlcnZlcyBhcyBpbXBsaWNpdCBJRVRG IGVuZG9yc2VtZW50IG9mDQo+IHNvbWV0aGluZyBJIHN0aWxsIHZpZXcgYXMgYSBiYWQgaWRlYS4g SXTigJlzIHRoZSBsYXN0IEnigJlsbCBzYXkgYWJvdXQgaXQgYW5kIEnigJlsbCBnbw0KPiB3aXRo IFdHIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBvbiB0aGUgbWF0dGVyLCBidXQgSeKAmWQgbXVjaCByYXRoZXIgc2VlIHRo aXMgYXMgYW4NCj4gaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBkcmFmdC4NCg0KUkZDMjAyNiNzZWN0aW9uLTQuMi4yOiAN Cg0KICAgIDQuMi4yICBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsDQogICAgICBBbiAiSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCIgc3Bl Y2lmaWNhdGlvbiBpcyBwdWJsaXNoZWQgZm9yIHRoZSBnZW5lcmFsDQogICAgICBpbmZvcm1hdGlv biBvZiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgY29tbXVuaXR5LCBhbmQgZG9lcyBub3QgcmVwcmVzZW50IGFuDQog ICAgICBJbnRlcm5ldCBjb21tdW5pdHkgY29uc2Vuc3VzIG9yIHJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9uLiAgVGhl IEluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwNCiAgICAgIGRlc2lnbmF0aW9uIGlzIGludGVuZGVkIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUg Zm9yIHRoZSB0aW1lbHkgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgYQ0KICAgICAgdmVyeSBicm9hZCByYW5nZSBv ZiByZXNwb25zaWJsZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsIGRvY3VtZW50cyBmcm9tIG1hbnkNCiAgICAgIHNv dXJjZXMsIHN1YmplY3Qgb25seSB0byBlZGl0b3JpYWwgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgYW5kIHRvIHZl cmlmaWNhdGlvbg0KICAgICAgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBhZGVxdWF0ZSBjb29yZGluYXRp b24gd2l0aCB0aGUgc3RhbmRhcmRzIHByb2Nlc3MNCiAgICAgIChzZWUgc2VjdGlvbiA0LjIuMyku DQoNClNvIHdlIGNsZWFybHkgZG9uJ3Qgd2FudCB0byBkbyBzb21ldGhpbmcgdGhhdCBnb2VzIGFn YWluc3QgdGhlIGludHVpdGlvbiBvZiBtYW55IHBlb3BsZSwgYnV0IGF0IGxlYXN0IGZyb20gYSBm b3JtYWwgcG9pbnQgb2YgdmlldyBJIGNhbm5vdCBzZWUgYSBwcm9ibGVtLiBXZSBhcmUgbm93IGlu IFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbCwgc28gSSB0aGluayB3ZSBzaG91bGQgY29tcGxldGUgaXQuIEJ1dCBpZiB0 aGVyZSBpcyBicm9hZCBjb25jZXJuLCB3ZSdyZSBhbHNvIGhhcHB5IHRvIHJlLXN1Ym1pdCBhcyBh biBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIGRyYWZ0LiANCg0KV2hpY2hldmVyIHdheSB3ZSBnbzogVGhpcyBjb25jZXJu IGhhcyBiZWVuIGJyb3VnaHQgdXAgYmVmb3JlLCBhbmQgSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gaGF2ZSBhIGNvbmNs dXNpb24gb24gdGhpcyB0b3BpYywgc28gdGhhdCB3ZSBjYW4gcHJvZ3Jlc3MuIFNvLCBjaGFpcnMg LSB3aGF0IGRvIHlvdSBzdWdnZXN0PyANCiANCj4gU2Vjb25kLCB5b3UgYnJpZWZseSBtZW50aW9u IHNvbWUgY29tcGxpY2F0aW9ucyB3aXRoIFJTVlAtVEUgaW4geW91cg0KPiBjYXZlYXRzIHNlY3Rp b24uIFRoZXJlIGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSBhIGRyYWZ0IHdl4oCZcmUgaG9waW5nIHRvIGdldCBhZG9w dGVkIGluIHRoZQ0KPiBNUExTIFdHIChkcmFmdC1nZW9yZ2UtbXBscy1pcHY2LW9ubHktZ2FwKSB0 aGF0IGFuYWx5emVzIHRoZSBnYXBzDQo+IHByZXZlbnRpbmcgb3BlcmF0aW9uIG9mIE1QTFMgb24g YW4gSVB2Ni1vbmx5IG5ldHdvcmsuIFdlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHNvbWUNCj4gZmVlZGJhY2sgZnJvbSBO YWdlbmRyYSBLdW1hciBwb2ludGluZyBvdXQgdGhhdCBhbiBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIGdhcCBpcw0KPiBj cmVhdGVkIGlmIG9uZSB1c2VzIExMQS1vbmx5LCBidXQgdGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgaGF2ZSBtYWRlIHRo ZSBkZWNpc2lvbiB0byB0cnkNCj4gdG8gYXZvaWQgZGlzY3Vzc2luZyBkcmFmdCBpbXBsZW1lbnRh dGlvbnMgaW4gdGhhdCBnYXAgYW5hbHlzaXMsIG9yIGVsc2UgdGhlDQo+IGRyYWZ0IHdpbGwgbmV2 ZXIgYmUgZmluaXNoZWQuIFdlIGFyZSBpbnN0ZWFkIGVuY291cmFnaW5nIGRyYWZ0IGF1dGhvcnMg dG8NCj4gY29uc2lkZXIgSVB2Ni1vbmx5IG9wZXJhdGlvbiBpbiB0aGVpciBkcmFmdHMsIGFuZCB0 byBpZGVudGlmeSBleGlzdGluZyBnYXBzDQo+IHRoYXQgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGRlcGVuZHMgb24gZ2V0 dGluZyByZXNvbHZlZCwgb3IgbWFraW5nIGNoYW5nZXMgdG8gYWRkcmVzcw0KPiBhbnkgZ2FwcyBh cyBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZS4gVGhlcmVmb3JlLCB5b3UgbWF5IHdhbnQgdG8gaW5jbHVkZSBzb21lIG9m IHRoZQ0KPiByZXZpZXdlcuKAmXMgc3VnZ2VzdGVkIHRleHQgaW4gdGhpcyBkcmFmdDoNCj4gUlNW UC1URQ0KPiBbSS1ELmlldGYtb3BzZWMtbGxhLW9ubHldIGRlc2NyaWJlcyB0aGUgYXBwcm9hY2gg b2YgZW5hYmxpbmcgbGluay0NCj4gICAgbG9jYWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFsb25lIGluIHRyYW5zaXQg bGlua3MuICBUaGlzIHJhaXNlcyBhIG5lZWQgZm9yIG5ldw0KPiAgICBTdWJPYmplY3QgdG8gY2Fy cnkgYSBjb21iaW5hdGlvbiBvZiBSb3V0ZXJJRCBhbmQgTGluay9JbnRlcmZhY2UgSUQgaW4NCj4g ICAgUlNWUCBQQVRIIGFuZCBSRVNWIG1lc3NhZ2UuDQo+IA0KPiAgICBHYXA6IE1pbm9yLCBOZXcg U3ViT2JqZWN0IGZvciBSU1ZQIG1lc3NhZ2UgZm9yIHNwZWNpZmljIElQdjYNCj4gZGVwbG95bWVu dC4NCg0KV2UgY2FuIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhpcyBpbiB0aGF0IHNlY3Rpb24sIG5vdCBhIHByb2JsZW0u IEl0IGRvZXMgYWRkIHZhbHVlLCBhcyBpdCBkZXNjcmliZXMgaG93IHRoZSBpc3N1ZSBjYW4gYmUg c29sdmVkLiBUaGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSBpbmZvIQ0KDQo+IElmIHRoZSBXRyBkZWNpZGVzIHRvIG1v dmUgdGhpcyAtMDYgdmVyc2lvbiBvbiBmb3IgSUVURiBMQyBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uLCB0aGlzDQo+ IGlzIHByb2JhYmx5IHNvbWV0aGluZyB0aGF0IGNhbiBiZSBhZGRlZCB3aGVuIHRoZSBhdXRob3Jz IGFyZQ0KPiBpbmNvcnBvcmF0aW5nIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBjb21tZW50cy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzISBDaGFp cnMsIHdoYXQgaXMgbWlzc2luZyBpbiB0aGUgV0cgTEM/IEFyZSB3ZSBkb25lPyANCg0KTWljaGFl bA0KDQo= From wesley.george@twcable.com Wed Jan 22 07:45:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE8A1A010C for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:45:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.1 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZjZYMn1EpnG for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:45:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdcipgw02.twcable.com (cdcipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.91.111]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7351A0124 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:45:38 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,700,1384318800"; d="scan'208";a="58384817" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdcipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 22 Jan 2014 10:45:19 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.79]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:45:37 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" , "opsec@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:45:36 -0500 Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt Thread-Index: Ac8XiP8JvtAdGWglQh2i5EWPDiEjbA== Message-ID: References: <20140106171354.1797.64065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D94B2D7@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D94B2D7@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:45:40 -0000 T24gMS8xNy8xNCwgMzo0MyBQTSwgIk1pY2hhZWwgQmVocmluZ2VyIChtYmVocmluZykiIDxtYmVo cmluZ0BjaXNjby5jb20+DQp3cm90ZToNCg0KPlJGQzIwMjYjc2VjdGlvbi00LjIuMjoNCj4NCj4g ICAgNC4yLjIgIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwNCj4gICAgICBBbiAiSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCIgc3BlY2lm aWNhdGlvbiBpcyBwdWJsaXNoZWQgZm9yIHRoZSBnZW5lcmFsDQo+ICAgICAgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24g b2YgdGhlIEludGVybmV0IGNvbW11bml0eSwgYW5kIGRvZXMgbm90IHJlcHJlc2VudCBhbg0KPiAg ICAgIEludGVybmV0IGNvbW11bml0eSBjb25zZW5zdXMgb3IgcmVjb21tZW5kYXRpb24uICBUaGUg SW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbA0KPiAgICAgIGRlc2lnbmF0aW9uIGlzIGludGVuZGVkIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUg Zm9yIHRoZSB0aW1lbHkgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgYQ0KPiAgICAgIHZlcnkgYnJvYWQgcmFuZ2Ug b2YgcmVzcG9uc2libGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCBkb2N1bWVudHMgZnJvbSBtYW55DQo+ICAgICAg c291cmNlcywgc3ViamVjdCBvbmx5IHRvIGVkaXRvcmlhbCBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBhbmQgdG8N Cj52ZXJpZmljYXRpb24NCj4gICAgICB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGhhcyBiZWVuIGFkZXF1YXRlIGNvb3Jk aW5hdGlvbiB3aXRoIHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZHMgcHJvY2Vzcw0KPiAgICAgIChzZWUgc2VjdGlvbiA0 LjIuMykuDQpZb3UgbWFrZSBhIGdvb2QgcG9pbnQsIGFuZCB0aG9zZSBmYW1pbGlhciB3aXRoIElF VEYgbWF5IHdlbGwgaW50ZXJwcmV0IGl0DQp0aGF0IHdheS4gSG93ZXZlciwgd2UgaGF2ZSBwbGVu dHkgb2YgSW5mb3JtYXRpb25hbCBkcmFmdHMgdGhhdCBnbyB0aHJvdWdoDQphIFdHIGFuZCBJRVRG IExDLCBhcmUgZXZhbHVhdGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBJRVNHIGFuZCBkbyByZXByZXNlbnQgSUVURg0KY29u c2Vuc3VzLCBhbmQgdGhhdCBpcyB0aGUgcGF0aCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIGN1cnJlbnRseSBv bi4NCkFkZGl0aW9uYWxseSwgd2hhdCBJ4oCZdmUgZm91bmQgaW4gcHJhY3RpY2Ugd2l0aCB0aG9z ZSB3aG8gYXJlIGNvbnN1bWVycyBvZg0KSUVURiBkcmFmdHMgYnV0IG5vdCBhY3RpdmUgcGFydGlj aXBhbnRzIGFuZCB0aHVzIG5vdCBmYW1pbGlhciB3aXRoIHRoZQ0KbnVhbmNlcyBvZiBvdXIgZG9j dW1lbnQgY2xhc3NpZmljYXRpb25zIGlzIHRoYXQgdG8gdGhlbSwgYW4gUkZDIGlzIGFuIFJGQy4N ClRoZXJlZm9yZSwgdGhlIGJvaWxlcnBsYXRlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBhY2NvbXBhbmllcyBhbiBpbmRp dmlkdWFsIGRyYWZ0IChzZWUNCjU3NDIpIHByb3ZpZGVzIHRoZSBuZWNlc3NhcnkgZGlzY2xhaW1l ciB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGNsZWFyIHRoYXQgSUVURiBkb2VzbuKAmXQNCmVuZG9yc2Ugc29tZXRoaW5n LCBldmVuIGlmIGl0IGlzIGRvY3VtZW50ZWQgYXMg4oCcdGhpcyBpcyBhIHRoaW5nIHRoYXQNCmNv bnNlbnRpbmcgYWR1bHRzIG1heSBkbyBvbiB0aGVpciBuZXR3b3JrIGlmIHRoZXkgY2hvb3Nl4oCd IGluc3RlYWQgb2Yg4oCcdGhpcw0KaXMgYSB0aGluZyB0aGF0IHlvdSBTSE9VTEQgZG8gb24geW91 ciBuZXR3b3Jr4oCdLg0KDQpUaGFua3MNCldlcw0KDQoNClRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGFuZCBhbnkgb2Yg aXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIG1heSBjb250YWluIFRpbWUgV2FybmVyIENhYmxlIHByb3ByaWV0YXJ5 IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB3aGljaCBpcyBwcml2aWxlZ2VkLCBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwsIG9yIHN1Ympl Y3QgdG8gY29weXJpZ2h0IGJlbG9uZ2luZyB0byBUaW1lIFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZS4gVGhpcyBFLW1h aWwgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgc29sZWx5IGZvciB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIG9yIGVu dGl0eSB0byB3aGljaCBpdCBpcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUgbm90IHRoZSBpbnRlbmRl ZCByZWNpcGllbnQgb2YgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwsIHlvdSBhcmUgaGVyZWJ5IG5vdGlmaWVkIHRoYXQg YW55IGRpc3NlbWluYXRpb24sIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiwgY29weWluZywgb3IgYWN0aW9uIHRha2Vu IGluIHJlbGF0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBjb250ZW50cyBvZiBhbmQgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgdG8gdGhpcyBF LW1haWwgaXMgc3RyaWN0bHkgcHJvaGliaXRlZCBhbmQgbWF5IGJlIHVubGF3ZnVsLiBJZiB5b3Ug aGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2Vu ZGVyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGFuZCBwZXJtYW5lbnRseSBkZWxldGUgdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIGFuZCBh bnkgY29weSBvZiB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IHByaW50b3V0Lg0K From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 23 03:26:00 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E521A0456; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:26:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6_4qZHhtVsuJ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:25:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044531A034E; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:25:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140123112558.11322.99416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:25:58 -0800 Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:26:00 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP = Network Infrastructure Working Group of the IETF. Title : Virtual Private Network (VPN) traffic leakages in= dual-stack hosts/ networks Author : Fernando Gont Filename : draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2014-01-23 Abstract: The subtle way in which the IPv6 and IPv4 protocols co-exist in typical networks, together with the lack of proper IPv6 support in popular Virtual Private Network (VPN) products, may inadvertently result in VPN traffic leaks. That is, traffic meant to be transferred over a VPN connection may leak out of such connection and be transferred in the clear from the local network to the final destination. This document discusses some scenarios in which such VPN leakages may occur, either as a side effect of enabling IPv6 on a local network, or as a result of a deliberate attack from a local attacker. Additionally, it discusses possible mitigations for the aforementioned issue. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From fgont@si6networks.com Thu Jan 23 03:50:45 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7611F1A042B for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:50:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vw68XmBvA02Q for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06281A03E9 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from 75-138-17-190.fibertel.com.ar ([190.17.138.75] helo=[192.168.3.102]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1W6Ino-0008Ij-Bn; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:50:37 +0100 Message-ID: <52E101EB.7000100@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 08:50:03 -0300 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsec@ietf.org References: <20140123112558.11322.99416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140123112558.11322.99416.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joel Jaeggli , opsec chairs Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:50:45 -0000 Folks, FYI, this version addresses Paul's and Kathleen's comments. The only remaining bit is the issue raised by Carlos which we'll hopefully address in the next rev. Thanks! Fernando On 01/23/2014 08:25 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Virtual Private Network (VPN) traffic leakages in dual-stack hosts/ networks > Author : Fernando Gont > Filename : draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2014-01-23 > > Abstract: > The subtle way in which the IPv6 and IPv4 protocols co-exist in > typical networks, together with the lack of proper IPv6 support in > popular Virtual Private Network (VPN) products, may inadvertently > result in VPN traffic leaks. That is, traffic meant to be > transferred over a VPN connection may leak out of such connection and > be transferred in the clear from the local network to the final > destination. This document discusses some scenarios in which such > VPN leakages may occur, either as a side effect of enabling IPv6 on a > local network, or as a result of a deliberate attack from a local > attacker. Additionally, it discusses possible mitigations for the > aforementioned issue. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-03 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > OPSEC@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 23 05:06:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F8F1A042D; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:06:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5oWoB1hChHtc; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158C81A00CA; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:06:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140123130617.6012.40676.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:06:17 -0800 Cc: opsec@ietf.org Subject: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:06:19 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP = Network Infrastructure Working Group of the IETF. Title : Network Reconnaissance in IPv6 Networks Authors : Fernando Gont Tim Chown Filename : draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-03.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2014-01-23 Abstract: IPv6 offers a much larger address space than that of its IPv4 counterpart. The standard /64 IPv6 subnets can (in theory) accommodate approximately 1.844 * 10^19 hosts, thus resulting in a much lower host density (#hosts/#addresses) than is typical in IPv4 networks, where a site typically has 65,000 or less unique addresses. As a result, it is widely assumed that it would take a tremendous effort to perform address scanning attacks against IPv6 networks, and therefore brute-force IPv6 address scanning attacks have been considered unfeasible. This document updates RFC 5157 by providing further analysis on how traditional address scanning techniques apply to IPv6 networks, and exploring some additional techniques that can be employed for IPv6 network reconnaissance. In doing so, this document formally obsoletes RFC 5157. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From gvandeve@cisco.com Thu Jan 23 09:12:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E061A00DE for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:12:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.036 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P3nbw4KsgxgB for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:12:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E709C1A006C for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:12:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1322; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390497148; x=1391706748; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Swebe2X2M1Ym8uEZlcz3tqUHOZ90ZvshpybGJMgTZRo=; b=H/jnOTcyFSARLOlNH2lre9xii+psfBoJWFLY6wpXK2wHYO9KzGIIkL6L 25mTDGnuJ0vzmq19gtVDww+NmLsWL2Fl8HnrZbd5d8Dpi1pJiQILUAxj6 kQl2GgepvVSt5bSW6d/LKcCGGCjeCSXkS/2aMBPuroeY8rnXzHy+BOAll I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah8FAGhM4VKtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABbgwyBDoJ+uHsYeRZ0giUBAQEDASMRVQIBCBoCBiACAgIwFRACBAEaE4diCKlxnBYXgSmNJjiCbzWBFAEDqjuDLYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,706,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="15025743" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2014 17:12:27 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0NHCSlM027985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:12:28 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com ([169.254.7.104]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:12:27 -0600 From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" To: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" , "George, Wes" , "opsec@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt Thread-Index: AQHPCwK+Gk9qzzxAEEmeA6cKqhVQw5p7SXeAgA6OmQCACMmNAA== Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:12:27 +0000 Message-ID: <67832B1175062E48926BF3CB27C49B240D3AFA46@xmb-aln-x12.cisco.com> References: <20140106171354.1797.64065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D94B2D7@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF1D94B2D7@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.155.120.153] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-lla-only-06.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:12:31 -0000 DQo+PiBJZiB0aGUgV0cgZGVjaWRlcyB0byBtb3ZlIHRoaXMgLTA2IHZlcnNpb24gb24gZm9yIElF VEYgTEMgDQo+PiBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uLCB0aGlzIGlzIHByb2JhYmx5IHNvbWV0aGluZyB0aGF0 IGNhbiBiZSBhZGRlZCB3aGVuIHRoZSANCj4+IGF1dGhvcnMgYXJlIGluY29ycG9yYXRpbmcgbGFz dCBjYWxsIGNvbW1lbnRzLg0KPg0KPiBUaGFua3MhIENoYWlycywgd2hhdCBpcyBtaXNzaW5nIGlu IHRoZSBXRyBMQz8gQXJlIHdlIGRvbmU/DQoNCkhpIE1pY2hhZWwsIEFsbCwNCg0KTWFueSB0aGFu a3MgZm9yIGFsbCB0aGUgY29uc3RydWN0aXZlIHdvcmsgdXBvbiB0aGUgd29yay4NCkdvb2QgdG8g c2VlIGFsbCB0aGVzZSBnb29kIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIG9mIG9wZXJhdGlvbmFsIHNlY3VyaXR5 IGltcGFjdCBkaXNjdXNzZWQuDQoNClRoZSBjaGFpcnMgaGF2ZSBsb29rZWQgYXQgYWxsIGNvbW1l bnRzIGR1cmluZyBXR0xDLg0KRnJvbSB0aGF0IHdlIHNlZSB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGFncmVlbWVu dCB0aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBjb3JyZWN0IGZyb20gYSB0ZWNobmljYWwuDQoNClRoZXJl IGlzIHJvdWdoIGNvbnNlbnN1cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBkb2VzIG5vdCBwcm92aWRlIHJl Y29tbWVuZGF0aW9uLCBhbmQgeWV0IG9ubHkgcHJvdmlkZXMgZGF0YS1wb2ludHMgaWYgb25lIHdv dWxkIHV0aWxpemUgdGhlIGxpbmstbG9jYWxzIGluIHN1Y2ggYSB3YXkuIFRoZXJlIGlzIGEgbm90 aW9uIG9mIHdvcnJ5IHRoYXQgdGhlIGJhcmUgZXhpc3RlbmNlIG9mIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCB3aWxs IHRyaWdnZXIgcGVvcGxlIHRvIHV0aWxpemUgdGhlIHNvbHV0aW9uLg0KDQpXZSB3aWxsIHRha2Ug dGhlc2UgV0cgdGhvdWdodHMgdG9nZXRoZXIgd2l0aCB0aGUgc3VtbWFyeSBvZiBXRyBkb2N1bWVu dCBzdGF0dXMgaW4gdGhlIHNoZXBoZXJkIHdyaXRlLXVwIGZvciBJRVRGIExDLg0KDQpHLw0K From martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Jan 27 05:41:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B170E1A021E for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:41:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.89 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N3p-ahwMN9_g for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:41:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from hoemail2.alcatel.com (hoemail2.alcatel.com [192.160.6.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686C21A0142 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by hoemail2.alcatel.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id s0RDexXv013356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:41:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s0RDevOL003630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:40:57 +0100 Received: from [172.27.205.227] (135.239.27.40) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:40:56 +0100 Message-ID: <52E661E8.6010007@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:40:56 +0100 From: Martin Vigoureux Organization: Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fernando Gont References: <52A0A533.8050100@alcatel-lucent.com> <52A20312.9080408@si6networks.com> <52A5EB68.4000409@alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <52A5EB68.4000409@alcatel-lucent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40] Cc: draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages.all@tools.ietf.org, opsec@ietf.org, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSEC] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-02 X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:41:08 -0000 Fernando, I see you have published a new version of your draft. I would have appreciated a reply to my e-mail below, at least stating why you believe the text you suggested me to provide you with was, in the end, not satisfactory. -m Le 09/12/2013 17:10, Martin Vigoureux a écrit : > Fernando, > > thanks for following up. > > Your explanations clarify a lot, so I think these clarifications need to > be brought to the draft. You are free not to take the suggested text as > is, but I think you need to keep the objective. > > > I would start by clarifying the Abstract: > OLD: > That is, traffic meant to be transferred over a VPN connection may leak > out of such connection and be transferred in the clear from the local > network to the final destination. > NEW: > That is, traffic meant to be transferred over a VPN connection may leak > out of such connection and be sent in the clear on the local network > towards the final destination. > > OLD: > This document discusses some scenarios in which such VPN leakages may > occur, either as a side effect of enabling IPv6 on a local network, or > as a result of a deliberate attack from a local attacker. > > NEW: > This document discusses some scenarios in which such VPN leakages may > occur as a result of employing IPv6-unaware VPN software. > > Then I believe you need to rework the first paragraph of the > Introduction to clearly and rapidly state your problem space rather than > loosing the reader in the VPN-to-corporate-resources sink. This echoes > the comment you also received from Lee and the original one from KK. > > OLD: > It is a very common practice for employees working at remote > locations to establish a VPN connection with their office or home > office. This is typically done to gain access to some resources only > available within the company's network, but also to secure the host's > traffic against attackers that might be connected to the same remote > location. The same is true for mobile nodes that establish VPN > connections to secure their traffic while they roam from one network > to another. In some scenarios, it is even assumed that employing a > VPN connection makes the use of insecure protocols (e.g. that > transfer sensitive information in the clear) acceptable, as the VPN > provides security services (such as data integrity and/or > confidentiality) for all communications made over the VPN. > NEW: > It is a very common practice for users of a VPN software to > establish a VPN connection towards a targeted endpoint when their > terminal, which hosts the VPN software, is itself connected to a > local network (e.g., a conference network). This is typically done > to gain access to some resources which are otherwise not accessible, > but also to secure the terminal's traffic through the local network > (e.g., against attackers that might be connected to the same local > network). The latter case constitute the problem space of this > document. Indeed, it is sometimes assumed that employing a VPN > connection makes the use of insecure protocols (e.g., that transfer > sensitive information in the clear) acceptable, as a VPN provides > security services (such as data integrity and/or confidentiality) > for all communications made over that VPN. However, this document > illustrates that under certain circumstances, some traffic might not > be mapped onto the VPN and thus be sent in the clear on the local > network. > > -m > > Le 06/12/2013 18:02, Fernando Gont a écrit : >> Hi, Martin! >> >> Thanks so much for your review! -- Please find my comments inline... >> >> On 12/05/2013 01:09 PM, Martin Vigoureux wrote: >>> Comments: >>> This document is short, focussed, and well written. >>> However it is unclear, beyond that fact that users do not know that >>> traffic is leaking from (rather not mapped onto) their VPN, what the >>> real issue is. Yes, a man in the middle, might intercept the leaked >>> traffic but this traffic is a priori intended to resources only >>> accessible through the VPN. >> >> The most basic scenario, as described in the I-D is this: >> You attend a conference and tunnel everything through the VPN (for >> security/privacy reasons). But then all your traffic goes in the clear... >> >> The implications are that the user can now be monitored wrt which istes >> he visits, etc., his location is leaked out, plaintext passwords come up >> in the clear, MITM attacks become possible, etc. >> >> >> >>> So, knowing that the leaked traffic will not >>> reach the targeted destination, it is not clear which critical >>> information it may carry. I believe that it would be worth giving an >>> example. >> >> This is what we currently have in the I-D, as an example, in the intro: >> >> ---- cut here ---- >> It is a very common practice for employees working at remote >> locations to establish a VPN connection with their office or home >> office. This is typically done to gain access to some resources only >> available within the company's network, but also to secure the host's >> traffic against attackers that might be connected to the same remote >> location. The same is true for mobile nodes that establish VPN >> connections to secure their traffic while they roam from one network >> to another. In some scenarios, it is even assumed that employing a >> VPN connection makes the use of insecure protocols (e.g. that >> transfer sensitive information in the clear) acceptable, as the VPN >> provides security services (such as data integrity and/or >> confidentiality) for all communications made over the VPN. >> ---- cut here ---- >> >> Please let me know if you think this should be modified/augmented... >> and, if possible, provide advice regarding "how" that should be done. :-) >> >> >> >>> Minor Issues: >>> Abstract: >>> This document discusses some scenarios in which such VPN leakages >>> may occur, either as a side effect of enabling IPv6 on a local >>> network, or as a result of a deliberate attack from a local >>> attacker. >>> I believe this sentence does not exactly reflect the content of the >>> document. For the first part, I think it is not only because of enabling >>> IPv6 but because a site has both IPv4 and IPv6 support *and* a VPN >>> client has poor capabilities in handling securely (i.e., mapping on the >>> VPN) packets which use one of the two address families. >> >> Would this modification address your comment?: >> >> ---- cut here ---- >> This document discusses some scenarios in which such VPN leakages >> may occur as a result of employing IPv6-unaware software in networks >> that support IPv6 (either legitimately, or as a result of a >> deliberate attack from a local attacker). >> ---- cut here ---- >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best regards, >> > > From heard@pobox.com Thu Jan 30 08:56:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF871A044C for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:56:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.121 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UcKqTgQGiQ_6 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF781A0443 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1622 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2014 08:56:24 -0800 Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 30 Jan 2014 08:56:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:56:24 -0800 (PST) From: "C. M. Heard" X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net To: OPSEC In-Reply-To: <20131021222229.32495.36420.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: References: <20131021222229.32495.36420.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [OPSEC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-01.txt X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: opsec wg mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:56:30 -0000 Hello, In Section 5, bullet #1, I see: RATIONALE: [RFC6564] specifies a uniform format for IPv6 Extension Headers, thus meaning that an IPv6 node can parse an IPv6 header chain even if it contains Extension Headers that are not currently supported by that node. Actually, it's NOT possible for a node to safely parse an IPv6 header chain containing Next Header values that it does not know, even with the uniform TLV format for IPv6 extension headers defined in RFC 6564. The reason for that is because unkown Next Header value could represent an upper-layer protocol rather than an extension header, so it's not safe to attempt to follow the header chain any further. The same issue affects draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-07. Whatever solution applies to that document also applies to this one. Since ra-guard is in AUTH48 it's rather more urgent to get it fixed, so I suggest that those interested in this matter follow the discussion thread regarding that doc that I will start on the v6ops list shortly. Thanks and regards, Mike Heard On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : DHCPv6-Shield: Protecting Against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers > Author(s) : Fernando Gont > Will Liu > Gunter Van de Velde > Filename : draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-01.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2013-10-21 > > Abstract: > This document specifies a mechanism for protecting hosts connected to > a broadcast network against rogue DHCPv6 servers. The aforementioned > mechanism is based on DHCPv6 packet-filtering at the layer-2 device > at which the packets are received. The aforementioned mechanism has > been widely deployed in IPv4 networks ('DHCP snooping'), and hence it > is desirable that similar functionality be provided for IPv6 > networks. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-01 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-01 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >