Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-isis-trill

[Radia Perlman]

No objections.

Radia

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Donald Eastlake  wrote:
> My apologies for responding slowly, I was traveling.
>
> If it is tolerable to people, I do not mind adding the two sentences
> requested by Sam to the isis-trill draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
>
> PS: It appears to me that the same considerations apply to
> draft-ietf-isis-ieee-aq.
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Sam Hartman  wrote:
>>> "Erik" == Erik Nordmark  writes:
>>
>>
>>    Erik> Adding just this sentence to draft-ietf-isis-trill (the code
>>    Erik> point document) seems odd. Your comment is really a comment on
>>    Erik> the security of IS-IS, and not specific to TRILL and unrelated
>>    Erik> to the code points.
>>
>> I don't care much where the text goes.  I'm happy if you provide an rfc
>> editor note for draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol if you like that
>> approach better.  However, as I read draft-ietf-isis-trill, it defines
>> the interface between TRILL and IS-IS.  In my mind, that's where the
>> security consideration appears.  You're re-using a component that isn't
>> up to our current standards--we know that; we're working on it in
>> KARP. However in doing that, you need to document the security
>> considerations for your protocol.  Since you have a document that
>> specifically is the interface between your protocol and the component
>> you are re-using,that seems like the best place to do the documentation
>> work.
>>
>> however, in decreasing order of priority, I want to call out my concern
>> that we need to be far more careful about what we expect in terms of
>> security from future work we charter and that we should document the
>> specific interactions between IS-IS and TRILL.  While I have expressed
>> an opinion above on where I think that documentation should go, feel
>> free to put it where you think is most correct.
> ___
> secdir mailing list
> sec...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Does our passport need to be valid for 6 months to go to Prague?

[Radia Perlman]

There are some countries that require not just a *valid* passport, but 
one which won't
expire for  6 months beyond when you visit a country. Is Prague in one 
of these countries (for US citizens)?

I've heard conflicting things.

If it does have the requirement (that a passport has to be valid for
6 months beyond the IETF meeting), it should probably be noted on the 
ietf page about the meeting. I couldn't
see any information about passport expiration -- just that we don't need 
a visa.


Does anyone know definitively?

Thanks,

Radia


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: earlier agendas

[Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking]

I can see it either way:

1) assume people will just go to the WGs they are most involved in,
and facilitate as well as possible people going for the minimum number
of days (which means publishing agendas as early as possible, with
caveats that they might change). Discourage people from attending
anything they haven't been following. Make it boring and incomprehensible
on purpose for people who haven't been involved in that WG, so that
you don't get "tourists", or

2) assume cross-fertilization is good. That it's good for people
to get exposed to other WGs. Realize people can't follow
the mailing list of more than a few groups. Encourage "tourists"
at WGs by explaining what's going on. Perhaps starting out with
a 15 minute explanation of what the current controversies are.
So that someone that is generally knowledgeable but hasn't been
following some WG can pick up most of what's happening by attending
the meeting. Frankly, I think this would be a good idea, for many
reasons, including it would force the WG to summarize what it's
up to, which would help them organize their thoughts technically.
So the WG itself would benefit, not just the tourists.

Radia