It's fine. Barbara
> -----Original Message----- > From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of steve.dot...@cox.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:01 PM > To: f...@cisco.com; v6...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Cc: i...@core3.amsl.com > Subject: Re: [v6ops]Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple- > security-15.txt > > I like it. As Gert already said, it speaks to both views. > > -----Original Message----- > From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Fred Baker > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:40 PM > To: Operations; IESG IESG > Cc: i...@core3.amsl.com > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple- > security-15.txt > > > On Oct 15, 2010, at 3:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > >> I'd think that recommending having an option that disables > unattended automatic update would address this concern. Managed > service providers, since they'd be controlling the CPE, could go in and > disable unattended automatic updates (if they so desire). > > > > I think the discussion has shown that we (the IETF) don't have > consensus > > and that legal and commercial requirements will vary enormously in > the > > real world. To me there's only one possible conclusion: the IETF > can't > > "legislate" on this. So again here is my suggestion: > > > > REC-13: > > Residential Internet Gateways SHOULD provide a convenient means to > > securely update their firmware, for the installation of security > patches > > and other manufacturer-recommended changes. > > I have been following this discussion with a view to figuring out what > recommendations SHOULD be made :-) A key concern I have here, as I said > last week, is the difference between a residential gateway and a > laptop; A laptop's owner at least knows whether an irritating icon is > jumping up and down or has the opportunity to see a dialog box; I don't > see that happening with the router in my equipment closet under the > stairs. > > It seems that we agree that there are at least two options that need > support: > - automated software update > - manually initiated software update > > One could go into other mechanisms such as having the user download the > new image to a laptop and then TFTP it to a router. Some things are > best left unsuggested, for fear that the vendor might say "hey, that's > a great idea!". > > In both cases, the update has to be initiated by the residential CPE, > for scale and reliability, and if automated should be randomized in > time for reasons discussed in RFC 3439. Having the ISP or the vendor > manage a list of the IP addresses of deployed routers is (ahem) > problematic. > > In both cases, we need a way to specify the URL and certificate of the > download site. I should imagine the vendor would preconfigure them, and > an ISP running managed services could configure a different > URL+certificate in routers it deploys. There is of course the question > of what happens should the parameter memory get zapped; I would leave > that to the vendor. There is also the question of how the device knows > whether it has already downloaded the image; I for one would do that by > having the URL change itself, so that the client system ca always get > access to an older image as a recovery path and so it can tell whether > the image it is requesting is in fact new. > > In preceding recommendations, the format of the document is to state a > recommendation and follow it with an explanatory note. > > Which brings me to this suggestion: > > /* > * suggestion > */ > REC-13: > Residential Internet Gateways SHOULD provide a convenient means to > securely update their firmware, for the installation of security > patches and other manufacturer-recommended changes. > > Vendors can expect users and operators to have differing viewpoints on > the maintenance of patches, with some preferring automated update and > some preferring manual initiation, and those preferring automated > update wanting to download from a vendor site or one managed by the > network operator. To handle the disparity, vendors are well advised if > they provide manual and automated options. In the automated case, they > would do well to facilitate pre-configuration of the download URL and a > means of validating the software image such as a certificate. > /* > * end of suggestion > */ > > Opinions? > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
