Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Internet Emergency Preparedness (iepr ep)

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:27:17 -0500

>>>>> "King," == King, Kimberly S <[email-masked]> 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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:48:42 -0800

> 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

---

From: "King, Kimberly S." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:51:20 -0500

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