Re: [OPSEC] OpSec@IETF117: Meeting minutes

. Best Regards PS (1) @Tom on webmail formatting issue, agree, I more and more regret my VT100 and pine as a brave IMAP client From: Jen Linkova Date: Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 18:08 To: Arnaud Taddei Cc: opsec WG , OpSec Chairs Subject: Re: [OPSEC] OpSec@IETF117: Meeting minutes Hi Arnaud

Re: [OPSEC] OpSec@IETF117: Meeting minutes

Cc: Arnaud Taddei , Jen Linkova , opsec WG , OpSec Chairs Subject: Re: [OPSEC] OpSec@IETF117: Meeting minutes Hi, On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:35:10AM +, tom petch wrote: > The Chairs may judge that support from six implementers weighs more > than opposition from ten ope

Re: [OPSEC] OpSec@IETF117: Meeting minutes

Thank you Jen, Quick comments from a train in Germany 1. As I am still learning the IETF, I am a bit surprised. If ‘minutes’ mean ‘a script of what was said on the mic’ then this is ok. But as chair in another world, I have other expectations if these mean minutes: * The minimum I

Re: [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

th) – depending on the EH type (maybe a 2x drop of performance > because of recirculation). > > > the ‘additional cost’ and the ’security risk’ are not symmetric at all. > Yes, it is an apple and orange comparison. But both exist, and both may be > discussed. >

Re: [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

dditional performance penalty. > I am not sure which reason is bigger: additional cost or security risk. It > depends on the organization type. > Ed/ > -Original Message- > From: OPSEC [mailto:opsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arnaud Taddei > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 202

Re: [OPSEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] Why folks are blocking IPv6 extension headers? (Episode 1000 and counting) (Linux DoS)

Would like to support Fernando again, and not just because I have a Sony TV too. Cybersecurity is in such a bad state that I can only plea for a sense of realism and pragmatism vs dogmatism to get real solutions at hand to the defenders practitioners If not I will ask people here to consider

[OPSEC] test

Delete -- This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged,

[OPSEC] [ECH-DEPLOY] GitHub is public

The work on draft-campling-ech-deployment-considerations was moved under a GitHub project over the past 4 months Whilst we are still learning GitHub and improving, as requested, we agreed to make it public at:

Re: [OPSEC] Adoption Call: draft-gont-opsec-ipv6-addressing

Not sure where we are on this one, but I will re-iterate my support for the 3rd time (once in the meeting and 2 times on this list). > On 2 May 2023, at 20:56, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi, > > I support adoption! > > Some Nits - > - Expand SLAAC > - s/each prefix advertised advertised for

[OPSEC] Test

ignore -- This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged,

Re: [OPSEC] Operational Security Considerations and Encrypted Client Hello

Thank you Warren, we appreciate be given a chance to present. Please note we issued revision -04 and plan a revision -05 by Monday 27th of March. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-campling-ech-deployment-considerations/ One question as we are working on the best way to make our Github

Re: [OPSEC] Adoption call for draft-paine-smart-indicators-of-compromise

I would like too to support adoption of this document. IoCs are a fundamental element of the defenders and this is important work to keep developing. I will continue to review and contribute to this work. Best, Arnaud Envoyé de mon iPad ___ OPSEC