Hi Alvaro, Joel and Huaimo,
Yes the milestone seems a little aggressive. It is based on the fact that most of us think the problem is well defined. So I supposed much effort will go to the solution, not the problem statement. It’s OK for me that we start adopting a solution draft only after stabilizing the use case / problem statement documents. But as for how to reflect this consideration in the WG charter, there are some issues to clarify. 1) About the “bias to action”. As in the previous emails, I explained the basic idea and additional benefit of the current solution. If we think the solution direction is valid, is there any problem for us to put it in the charter? If we think the current solution has some “bias”, can we give more clear reason? 2) About the problem scope in the WG charter. There is no doubt that any specific solution has its limitation in the problem it can solve. I think Jari has made a very good revision of the charter to reflect the problem scope that the current solution can solve. If we want to leave room to other solutions, it seems better to set a relatively general problem scope. But as pointed out before, we are not sure whether a bigger problem scope is “solvable”. 3) I agree with Alvaro that a “document-revising charter-document” way is overkill. Best, Dan 发件人: Joel Halpern <[email protected]> 发送时间: 2022年5月11日 6:18 收件人: Huaimo Chen <[email protected]>; Dan Li <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'RTGWG' <[email protected]> 主题: Re: [savnet] updated SAVNET WG charter Agreed on both points. Those milestones are pretty aggressive. Also, until we have actually progressed the problem statement I do not see how a working group could adopt a solution. So, in light of the discussion about avoiding assuming answer, i think the interesting target would be a date after use case / problem statement adoption where the WG has to reach rough consensus that even if not done, the document(s) are stable and represent the working rough consensus of the WG. At which point we should explicitly discuss if we think the problem is solvable and what properties a solution has to have. Before we adopt a solution draft. Yes, that slows things down. We have had the problem for years, maybe decades. A few extra calendar quarters to make sure of what we are proposing seems a good idea. Yours, Joel On 5/10/2022 5:50 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote: The milestones in the charter seem very aggressive. "Milestones: Jul 2022, Adopt the use case document; Jul 2022, Adopt the problem statement document; Jul 2022, Adopt the first intra-domain architecture document; Nov 2022, Adopt the first inter-domain architecture document; ..." It is better to adopt the use case and problem statement first and then the others. Should the "first" be removed? Do we have any "second" intra-domain and inter-domain architectures? Best Regards, Huaimo _____ From: rtgwg <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> on behalf of Dan Li <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2022 9:26 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>; 'RTGWG' <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> Subject: updated SAVNET WG charter Dear colleagues, >From the feedback within and beyond the mailing list, we modify the SAVNET WG >charter by adding the specific cooperation with other WGs and adding some >tentative milestones. In what follows you can find the updated WG. We are >looking forward to further comments from the community. Best, Dan Charter for SAVNET Working Group Source address validation (SAV) is important to mitigate source address spoofing attacks. To improve the effectiveness, SAV mechanisms should be applied as close to the source as possible. Therefore, it is desired to deploy SAV in both intra-domain and inter-domain networks. However, existing SAV mechanisms like uRPF-related technologies may improperly permit spoofed traffic or improperly block legitimate traffic. The "Source Address Validation in Intra-domain and Inter-domain Networks (SAVNET)" working group will define a protocol-independent architecture and procedures to overcome the limitations of existing SAV mechanisms. Specifically, the SAVNET WG will define procedures that allow nodes to accurately determine valid incoming ports for specific source prefixes taking into account information not currently included in routing protocols. The scope of the SAVNET WG includes the SAV function in both intra-domain and inter-domain networks, and the validation of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The WG is expected to address intra-domain solutions first. SAVNET should avoid packet modification in the data plane. Where possible, existing control and management plane protocols must be used within existing architectures to implement the SAV function. Any modification of or extension to existing architectures, or control or management plane protocols, must be done in coordination with the WGs responsible for the architecture, or control or management plane protocol. The SAVNET WG is chartered for the following list of items: 1) Description of problem statement and use cases for SAVNET, including the requirements that need to be taken into account by the SAVNET architecture. 2) Definition of SAVNET architecture and new procedures, including both intra-domain and inter-domain networks. 3) Definition of operation and management mechanisms needed to operate and manage SAV-related configurations. 4) Solutions to implementing SAVNET architecture by defining modification of or extensions to existing routing protocols. For those, the SAVNET WG will coordinate and collaborate with other WGs as needed. Specific expected interactions include (but may not be limited to): * lsr for OSPFv2, OSPFv3 and IS-IS extensions * idr for BGP extensions * lsvr for BGP SPF extensions * rift for RIFT extensions Milestones: Jul 2022, Adopt the use case document; Jul 2022, Adopt the problem statement document; Jul 2022, Adopt the first intra-domain architecture document; Nov 2022, Adopt the first inter-domain architecture document; Mar 2023, submit the problem statement document; Mar 2023, Adopt the operational consideration document; Jul 2023, submit the intra-domain architecture document; Jul 2023, Adopt the YANG model document; Nov 2023, submit the inter-domain architecture document; Mar 2024, submit the operational consideration document; Mar 2024, submit the YANG model document.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
