In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marshall Eubanks writes:
>
>
>"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
>>
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jari Arkko writes:
>> >
>> >* In the Internet Area, there is the itrace WG which is
>> > specifically chartered for looking into DoS, but is
>> > looking only at a particular solution. Is this
>> > solution sufficient for all DoS issues? We're not sure
>> > but at least some of the individual DoS concerns such
>> > as attacking address autoconfiguration don't really
>> > fall on the area that i-trace can deal with.
>>
>> Without addressing your general question, IESG policy is that working
>> groups should be very carefully focused. A hypothetical "Fix DDoS Working
>> Group" would probably not meet that test -- there are no concrete
>> deliverables.
>>
>> That said, an RFC that discussed DoS avoidance strategies would be
>> a good idea. I'm agnostic about whether that should be done in a
>> WG or as an individual submission, but BCP status would be a good
>> one to aim for. How this process should be organized is up to the
>> AD's and the IESG. (Also note that the next rev of draft-rescorla-sec-cons
>> has a good section on DoS attacks.)
>
>Is this available? The current draft has expired, and there is no new
>version in the draft directory.
>
The DoS section was added in the -03 draft, which wasn't ready in time for
the cut-off. I believe that Eric will submit it very soon.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
