No problem. I just didn't want the other issues to be forgotten in the excitement over gleaning.
Ross -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:42 PM To: Ross Callon; Joel Halpern Direct; Ronald Bonica; Roger Jørgensen Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats I may have misread the discussion. I was commenting only on the one topic of gleaning. I was leaving it to the authors to respond to your other comments. Yours, Joel On 5/15/14, 5:39 PM, Ross Callon wrote: > I raised a list of problems. They are not all already mentioned in the > threats document (eg, note the privacy issue at the end of my detailed email). > > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:29 PM > To: Ronald Bonica; Joel M. Halpern; Roger Jørgensen; Ross Callon > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats > > The threats document does not specify how to resolve the threats. It > identifies problems. In this particular case, it already identifies the > problem that Ross raised. Quite clearly. > > There is no dependence on the documents Roger pointed to. They are ways > of remediating the threat. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 5/15/14, 2:15 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: >> Joel, >> >> The threats document should not depend on lisp-sec or lisp-crypto. >> However, Roger's response did rely on those documents (see his >> response, below). >> >> So, we are left to explore whether something was omitted from the >> threats document. Standby for my response to Roger. >> >> Ron >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern >>> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:57 PM >>> To: Ronald Bonica; Roger Jørgensen; Ross Callon Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP threats >>> >>> Ron, I am having trouble with the question. >>> >>> The threats document describes the threats as they exist today, >>> without the adoption of either document that Roger pointed to. >>> Thus, I do not see any dependence. >>> >>> If there is a threat that is not well described in the base spec or >>> this document, then we should add it. We should add it even if >>> there are proposals to remediate it. But if there is a clear >>> proposal of a missing threat, I missed it. >>> >>> Yours, Joel >>> >>> On 5/13/14, 1:31 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: >>>> Hi Roger, >>>> >>>> Or asked more explicitly, can the level of security claimed by >>>> the threats >>> document be achieved without implementing the protocol extensions >>> described in lisp-sec and lisp-crypto? >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Bonica Sent: Tuesday, >>>>> May 13, 2014 1:22 PM To: 'Roger Jørgensen'; Ross Callon Cc: >>>>> [email protected] Subject: RE: [lisp] Restarting last call on LISP >>>>> threats >>>>> >>>>> Hi Roger, >>>>> >>>>> Can this draft stand on its own, without integrating content >>>>> from the documents that you reference? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There exist two draft that are relevant to what you address. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farinacci-lisp-crypto/ >>>>>> >>>>>> > where the payload of a LISP encapsulated packet are encrypted. None >>>>>> of the keys for encrypting/decrypting are stored in the >>>>>> mapping system but is calculated by the xTR's involved. Then >>>>>> you have >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec/ that >>>>>> attempts to secure the xTR to xTR relationship. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing >>>> list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>> > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
