Hi Fred,

I'm ok with it.

Regards,
Mark.


On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:40:07 -0700
Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to