Re: [homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?
Stephen Farrellwrote: > - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall? It sounds right. I think that bootstrap of security should become an recharter item in the future. Some kind of BCP on interactions with MUD, SUIT, etc. IN THE FUTURE. NOT NOW. > 2. We have this milestone in our charter: > "Nov 2018 - Submission of the perimeter security draft > to the IESG as Informational RFC" Yes. Are the authors still engaged? I think I've missed the last three homenet WG sessions due to conflicts. I find that the ML is too frequently ratholed when it isn't silent. > - Does the homenet wg need to profile use of those > security mechanisms, for example to document a way to > establish initial keying material that we'd like to see > implemented when those protocols are used in home networks? > - If so, (and without yet getting into discussions about ToFU > etc) do we have people who are interested in working on > that? Yes, but not yet. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] security work items - what do we want to do?
Hi homenet folks, Barbara and I were chatting about the security work that may need to be done in the homenet wg in the coming months and here are our thoughts on that. We'd like to get folks' reactions to those: - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall? - If the former, do we think it's doable? - If so, who'd like to help do the work etc. It seems there are three possible work items for us to consider: 1. Documenting the security considerations and any security mechanisms needed for draft-ietf-homenet-simple-naming. We assume that that work will be done as a normal part of developing that draft, so is, or will be, in-hand. 2. We have this milestone in our charter: "Nov 2018 - Submission of the perimeter security draft to the IESG as Informational RFC" - Do we still agree that this is a good milestone? - If not, why not? - If so, do we have people who are willing to work on this? 3. HNCP and Babel define some security mechanisms that can be used to secure those protocols, and more work is being done at the moment in the babel WG on uses of HMAC and DTLS with Babel. - Does the homenet wg need to profile use of those security mechanisms, for example to document a way to establish initial keying material that we'd like to see implemented when those protocols are used in home networks? - If so, (and without yet getting into discussions about ToFU etc) do we have people who are interested in working on that? If possible, it'd be great to get a sense of the WG's ideas on the above before we construct an agenda for our meeting in London in March (which is not that far away now). Thanks, Barbara & Stephen -- PGP key change time for me. New-ID 7B172BEA; old-ID 805F8DA2 expires Jan 24 2018. NewWithOld sigs in keyservers. Sorry if that mucks something up;-) 0x7B172BEA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
[homenet] homenet - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 101
An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Stephen Farrell, a Chair of the homenet working group. - Working Group Name: Home Networking Area Name: Internet Area Session Requester: Stephen Farrell Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 120 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: v6ops intarea dnsop dnssd 6man babel saag tls Second Priority: mptcp lpwan People who must be present: Stephen Farrell Terry Manderson Barbara Stark Resources Requested: Special Requests: Please try to ensure that the homenet session happens after the babel session if thats possible. Thanks. - ___ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet