[LinkSec] Teleconf 12/23 notes
The meeting on 12/23 was small and focused on planning. A summary is at the
end-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECSG LinkSec 12/23
Dolors Sala dolors@ieee.org, chairperson
Allyn Romanow allyn@cisco.com notes
attendees
Dolors, Russ Housley, Dennis, Dan, Allyn
no agenda for today
Dennis - What are the expectations for Vancouver mtg?
Dolors - if there is no conversion of thinking into one presentation, then get
as many inputs as possible
requirements, scope, placement of project
see where there is consensus and where not
what about biz model?
Dan- speaking of the agenda for the Vancouver meeting, there are two
categories of issues - technical and political
technical - model, analysis, Mick's contribution
issue of placement of the WG, we will need time to discuss
not sure we are stable enough to draft PAR yet
Allyn- Is there consensus that we will need to re-charter the SG, that
we cannot be ready with the PAR at the next plenary?
Russ - It's too early in process to think that we will have the PAR by the
next interim meeting, but on other hand the issues have been dealt
with alot in the past so that it isn't necessary to go over all the
issues again. So we may not need so much time.
The plenary is two mos. after the interim
Dolors - need to work on the PAR, even if it's not done by plenary, we
can still finish some part of it
allocate time at the interim to talk about the par to see where
consensus and where there is not
PAR must be submitted one month in advance of the plenary which is
March 14.
The only way to have the PAR to submit by plenary would have a second
interim meeting to agree on PAR to submit one month prior to plenary
The second interim meeting to be official needs to be announced 1
month in advance, i.e., announced in early January
By end of Jan 6 week, announce interim mtg., it will be held around
2/10-12 then could be done to submit PAR 30 days in advance of plenary.
March 14 week is plenary, need proposal by 2/12
Vancouver agenda - decide timetable based on progress
Presentations for the Vancouver interim - Monday 12/30 submit to Dolors,
post tuesday, teleconference meeting thursday
Interim - leave one session for discussion in addition to presentations
work all day Friday, close earlier if there is no work, otherwise work
till 5 or 6 pm
Don't know yet how many contributions
14 people have said they would attend
Tues- friday am, 802.1, EFM on Monday
Dolors will send email to Tony Jeffree about overlap
High level requirements is a key discussion, special time needed to
work on this
Dolors - we will take as much time as people want to discuss it
wait to see what the contributions will be, then work on interim agenda
if few presentations, we can have people lead discussion for key topics
Dolors will send out a notice and set up web page
Russ can't make it to Interim meeting
There is a scheduling conflict with the .11 meeting which is the
following week in Florida
Who else will be similarly effected? Jesse Walker, Paul Lambert??
try to avoid back to back 802 meetings
We need to co-locate with EFM
eventually this scheduling difficulty will straighten out, when we
know where the WG will be located
Dan - Dennis sent a proposal to some EPON participants to write a PAR
for EPON soln following closely the 802.1ad PAR for provider bridging.
provider is a place to start
Dave's list of 3, or 5
802.1ad par might be a place to begin
Dan - there are two different models for PARs, the one used by 802,1
and that used by 802.3
in 802.3, PARs are more detailed, an outline of what the WG wants to
achieve. If something new comes up in 6 mos., it is not officially part of work
unless objectives are re-voted.
802.1 is more informal because the group is smaller, the PAR is more
of a higher level guideline.
Each model works. We won't be a large group, but since we aren't in
agreement, maybe we should be more detailed
Dennis - suggests using 802.1ad PAR as a template, for the architecture
and terminology. They took much care in getting it right
It is narrow in scope, which makes the work manageable
Dolors - would you describe it, for the non-802.1 people?
Dennis will summarize
Thought for awhile that business level requirements were clear and could
see how to move forward
Now we are asking about other threat models
Dan - that is correct, provider is not the only model
Dennis will defend the provider bridge model, and someone else can
take another perspective, from enterprise perspective, including 802.11
Mani - will take a shot at presenting the enterprise side
Suggests using topology models - VPLS, MPLS requirements - what
perspective is most useful?
Dan - we need to have a layering discussion also
802.1ad tries to reconcile bridging with MPLS
Layering and topology are two dimensions
802.1ad is proposing an emulated LAN model
802.1ad is missing security requirements
lack of participation of security people
not sure if they can include security in this timeframe
Dolors - presentations
Mick will do architectural model, with Bob Moskowitz, or maybe Bob
will do separate
Antti scenarios for EPON
Dave - going to give a presentation?? (He also usually goes to 802.11 mtgs.)
Requirements
Dennis - Dave's 5 bullets:
theft of service from provider, protect customers from each other so
that provider won't get sued, billing records must be appropriate,
non-repudiation, consistency between media
Dolors - There are requirements are on on web page
Brian Ford - security requirements for EPON on the web page
Antti's contributions -
Want to know what provider needs, how expensive? how secure can you
make it for a particular price?
Is protecting MAC important, if I don't do it, what's the problem?
a provider will say.
Actually a provider won't give it as a requirement
A provider requires customers that don't see each others messages, and that
they do not break the system, but that is all a provider will say
about his requirements
Mani - 802.10 overview? will there be a liaison? Russ, but there's a
scheduling issue.
can someone do this in plenary mtg?
Can Russ send a contribution? someone else can present or just post an
overview?
Russ can't commit to getting it done on time
Another person who could is Paul Lambert who was on the call and also 802.10
Mani can help
Dolors will send reminder on submissions
will work out FTP site
contributions on monday, agenda tues, call on thurs next week
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief Summary
------------
This was a small meeting, few people, focused on planning, little
technical discussion.
For the interim, presentations should be sent to Dolors by Monday,
Dec. 30, they will be posted Tuesday, and can be discussed on Thursday
in the Teleconference.
We will try to have the PAR for the March plenary. It needs to be submitted
30 days prior. This would require a second Interim meeting around the 10th
of Feb., which needs to be announced around Jan. 10.
Depends on how the Vancouver interim goes.
There is a logistical problem in that 802.11 is meeting the following
week after the Vancouver Interim, so some people involved in both cannot
be able to come to the Vancouver Interim.