RE: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)
There are several important requirements that are specific to military and governmental needs that are emerging or were outside the current charter's scope. These requirements, I believe, include items such as ensured timely delivery of critical communications in an environment where security concerns (e.g., encryption) and QoS requirements must simultaneously be met. People may be considering the passing of RSVP messages over different security domains that may influence security (perhaps by aiding traffic analysis or introducing a covert channel). If you think that type of work is ill advised, for example, then your best chance of voicing that opinion is here at the IETF. The requirements aren't going away and people will be acting on them the best way they know how. Your best opportunity to bring the tradeoffs to light is here at the IETF. In my experience, the ITU is working on a Next Generation Network, with an IMS type set of assumptions. This doesn't necessarily fit military or government networks. While I am in favor of working with the ITU, I think it would be a mistake to shut this working group down. Kimberly ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)
On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote: > And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP > intersects with security. The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF, not which working group addresses a particular aspect. Kimberly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sam Hartman Cc: King, Kimberly S.; Pekka Savola; Scott Bradner; ietf@ietf.org Sent: 11/5/2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep) On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote: > And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP > intersects with security. I agree with Sam. TSVWG is the WG currently chartered for RSVP maintenance, which I would see this falling under. Here is the relevant charter text: The currently active TSVWG work items mostly fall under the following topics: (...) Maintenance of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP), which involves bug fixes to the RSVP specifications and their progression along the standards track. This work item may also include a small number of extensions to RSVP or advisory documents to address specific application scenarios. In order to maintain stable specifications, additional work on RSVP in TSVWG requires Area Director approval. Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories <> ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)
> "King," == King, Kimberly S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: King,> On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote: >> And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss >> where RSVP intersects with security. King,> The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF, not King,> which working group addresses a particular aspect. O, I agree that there is work related to ETS that belongs at the IETF. My question is whether there is any that belongs in ieprep. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)
At 04:29 PM 11/5/2006 -0800, Lars Eggert wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 16:06, King, Kimberly S. wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote: And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP intersects with security. The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF, not which working group addresses a particular aspect. Note that I wrote: TSVWG is the WG currently chartered for RSVP maintenance, which I would see this falling under. I made no statement of where RSVP work should happen in the future, but having this work elsewhere would obviously require consensus at various levels. didn't the IESG, about 18 months ago (it may be longer) write a letter to either ITU-T or ETSI to stop attempting to extend RSVP, that it was supposed to be done in the IETF? I seem to remember that event occuring, though I admit I don't remember the details; Allison Mankin would know, as should Jon Peterson. Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)
On Nov 5, 2006, at 16:06, King, Kimberly S. wrote: On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote: And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP intersects with security. The point is that this work belongs here at the IETF, not which working group addresses a particular aspect. Note that I wrote: TSVWG is the WG currently chartered for RSVP maintenance, which I would see this falling under. I made no statement of where RSVP work should happen in the future, but having this work elsewhere would obviously require consensus at various levels. Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)
On Nov 5, 2006, at 13:27, Sam Hartman wrote: And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP intersects with security. I agree with Sam. TSVWG is the WG currently chartered for RSVP maintenance, which I would see this falling under. Here is the relevant charter text: The currently active TSVWG work items mostly fall under the following topics: (...) Maintenance of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP), which involves bug fixes to the RSVP specifications and their progression along the standards track. This work item may also include a small number of extensions to RSVP or advisory documents to address specific application scenarios. In order to maintain stable specifications, additional work on RSVP in TSVWG requires Area Director approval. Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)
> "King," == King, Kimberly S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: King,> There are several important requirements that are specific King,> to military and governmental needs that are emerging or King,> were outside the current charter's scope. These King,> requirements, I believe, include items such as ensured King,> timely delivery of critical communications in an King,> environment where security concerns (e.g., encryption) and King,> QoS requirements must simultaneously be met. People may be King,> considering the passing of RSVP messages over different King,> security domains that may influence security (perhaps by King,> aiding traffic analysis or introducing a covert channel). King,> If you think that type of work is ill advised, for example, King,> then your best chance of voicing that opinion is here at King,> the IETF. The requirements aren't going away and people King,> will be acting on them the best way they know how. Your King,> best opportunity to bring the tradeoffs to light is here at King,> the IETF. And I believe that the tsvwg is the right place to discuss where RSVP intersects with security. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
