Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
Dolors-
I was copied on a few e-mails from you last fall, but then they stopped -- I
assume that is when you switched to the reflector. I guess I missed the
notification that a reflector was established for the study group
discussions. The last thing that I heard was that Russ Housley was
participating in some conference calls regarding the EPON security issues,
until I was notified this week of the current ballot. So, unfortunately, I
am not up to speed as to what has been discussed over the past few months.
I'm glad to see that there is representation from multiple working groups in
the study group, but as you point out the majority of the people are from
.1, which (as you also pointed out) is the 802 architecture group. While
the security matters on the table have some architectural component, they
are by far technical security issues that I feel should be addressed by the
802 security working group (which is the charter of .10). I can certainly
appreciate and applaud the effort that you and the other the participants
have put into the study group thus far, security can be a daunting task,
both from a technical and political perspective.
My point about the MAC-oriented WG was to delineate between the technical
protocol and hardware engineering issues that each MAC group deals with (the
things they are good at) versus the serious technical security issues that
the security working group deals with (the things that we are good at). I
guess what I'm trying to say is that security engineers wouldn't do nearly
as good a job designing a MAC interface, as engineers trained to build
hardware, and vice versa (evidence .11 WEP).
At this point there are no guarantees that any of the .10 WG members will
get funding to bring .10 out of hibernation, which is an unfortunate
situation that leaves 802 and the study group hanging. I would like to be
able to tell you definitely that one or more of our members will participate
in the study group, but I can't make any commitment for us at this point,
even though I believe that .10 is the working group into which the SEC
should direct the resultant PAR. We're pretty much in a Catch 22 situation
and all we can do is hope that a government sponsor will come through for
us. As you stated, there are deadlines that the SG is trying to meet and we
certainly don't want to stand in the way of progress, but to be sure any
resultant security solution has got to be absolutely correct, in order to
avoid another 802 black eye.
By the way, I attempted to join the LinkSec reflector, but was informed by
the majordomo that "linksec" was not a recognized group. Can you tell me
the correct group name to put on the "subscribe" line?
We can have further discussions of the technical security issues via the
reflector, but I think the political wranglings should be in full view of
the SEC.
Respectfully,
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dolors Sala" <dolors@ieee.org>
To: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; "Ken Alonge"
<kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>; "Geoff Thompson"
<gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>; "IEEE802" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Cc: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> I am glad to hear that the 802.10 members may finally get their personal
> funding issues resolved to participate in this effort soon. The current
> economical environment makes funding a challenge for a lot of individuals
> and companies. And we are making everything possible to make participation
> accessible to everyone.
>
> As you know, I have personally updated you as chairman of 802.10WG since
> this effort started early September 2002 until the formation of the SG.
> After that I have posted all the information to the reflector. No concerns
> have been voiced in there and currently there are members from at least
> 802.1, 802.3, 802.11, 802.15 and even 802.10.
>
> To give you an update of the first official SG meeting, we had up to 70
> participants in the meeting. It is true we have very strong participation
> from 802.1 but also from 802.3, and some participation from 802.11. This
> includes security experts, bridging experts and MAC experts. Thanks to
this
> participation we have been able to agree on a placement of the project but
> also on a work plan and make progress towards consensus, and more
> importantly a critical mass with the right expertise to take the job.
> (Obviously, we will get more participants as the process move forward.) So
> from my point of view, all 802.1 members, as well as all other
participants,
> deserve my full respect for taking their time and resources to attend the
> meetings and work on this project.
>
> At the same time, your opinion is also respected. I personally was not
aware
> of it. I would like to ask you to elaborate more on your proposal,
although
> it would have been useful to bring it to the group first. Do you plan to
> post this to the SG reflector?
>
> Can you please elaborate on the advantages of being part of 802.10 and
> outline the disadvantages of being part of 802.1? If you review the
minutes
> of the SG, I personally asked 802.1 officers to elaborate on the technical
> constraints due to being part of 802.1. The answer was none. 802.1 is the
> group "owning" the architecture issues of 802 and it is not restricted to
> the traditional layer location they have been working so far. 802.1 is
> focused on the global view of 802 networks instead of specific MACs. This
in
> fact was the reason for not doing it in 802.3. Therefore, this combined
with
> the attraction of security experts to the group meets the initial
motivation
> of this effort. If you think it doesn't, can you please elaborate on this?
> what do you mean with the following statement: "This SG will wind up in a
> MAC-oriented working group rather than in a non-biased security-oriented
> working group".
>
> I would like to remind that we are not approving an standard with this
> decision. We are just letting it start. The EPON people is trying to get
> this process running since EFM started early 2001. There is a real market
> need with real deadlines, specially in Asia, waiting for this solution.
>
> Ken, can you please explain how you want to proceed? do you want time in
the
> SG agenda to present your proposal? or in the opening or closing SEC
> meeting? You are saying there is no guarantees yet that any of you can
> attend the meeting. With the due respect, I am not sure what you are
> requesting. Should we take this to the SG reflector over email?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Dolors
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net>
> To: "Ken Alonge" <kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>; "Geoff Thompson"
> <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>; "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>;
> "IEEE802" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Cc: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>; "Dolors Sala (E-mail)"
> <dolors@ieee.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
> Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
>
>
> > Dear SEC,
> >
> > Attached is a message from Ken Alonge, the Chairman of the hibernating
> > 802.10 Security WG, on the ECSG Motion.
> >
> > (Bob O'Hara, please add Ken to the SEC reflector list.)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Paul Nikolich
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ken Alonge" <kenneth.alonge@verizon.net>
> > To: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>; "Paul Nikolich"
> > <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> > Cc: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>; "Dolors Sala (E-mail)"
> > <dolors@ieee.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the Link
> > Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
> >
> >
> > > Paul and Geoff-
> > >
> > > I couldn't agree with Geoff's position more. I think it is a grave
> > mistake
> > > to vote (at this point) to put the study group into 802.1.
> > >
> > > It seems to me (and was voiced to you by Russ Housley) that the deck
was
> > > stacked by the fact that the LinkSec study group meeting was held in
> > > conjunction with an 802.1 interim meeting. Some of the other working
> > groups
> > > that have an interest in the SG had conflicting meetings during or
near
> > the
> > > time of the SG meeting and therefore could not attend. It's obvious
that
> > the
> > > recommendation coming out of that meeting would be to move the SG into
> .1
> > > since most of the attendees were from .1, and it seems that members of
> .1
> > > are the ones driving this e-mail ballot.
> > >
> > > The other problem that I have with this is that it appears that this
SG,
> > > which is focused on critical 802 security issues, will wind up in a
> > > MAC-oriented working group rather than in a non-biased
security-oriented
> > > working group, such as .10. We clearly see, and the industry is still
> > > feeling, the result of the .11 security fiasco. Can 802 afford
another
> > > oops?
> > >
> > > Russ is pursuing funding from Government sponsors for both himself and
> me
> > so
> > > that we can unhibernate .10, if need be, in order to deal with the 802
> > > security issues. My guess is that we will be successful in getting
the
> > > required funding if 802 decides that .10 is where these issues should
be
> > > handled. It is also a possibility that the other two key .10 members
> > (Dick
> > > McAllister and Joe Maley) could get funding to participate, if .10
comes
> > out
> > > of hibernation.
> > >
> > > There is a possibility that I might be able to attend the March
plenary
> to
> > > discuss this further in person, but that depends on contractual issues
> > that
> > > are currently in the works and which probably won't get resolved until
> > late
> > > this week or early next week.
> > >
> > > Ken Alonge
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
> > > To: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> > > Cc: "IEEE802" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>; "Dolors Sala (E-mail)"
> > > <dolors@ieee.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:36 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC EMAIL BLLOT +++ MOTION: Authorize the
Link
> > > Security Exec SG to become an 802.1 SG
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Colleagues-
> > > >
> > > > I vote DISAPPROVE
> > > > Further, were this vote to come up on the agenda for Monday morning,
I
> > > > would move to defer the decision until Friday.
> > > >
> > > > By conducting this as an e-mail ballot we are taking a vote of the
> SEC.
> > By
> > > > conducting this vote at the closing plenary as I consider proper, we
> > would
> > > > (hopefully) have the input of the body of the Working Groups.
> > > >
> > > > It is my opinion that this sort of 802 structural decision will have
> far
> > > > reaching consequences for each/all of the Working Groups and should
> not
> > be
> > > > taken lightly.
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully,
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 02:04 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Dear SEC,
> > > > >
> > > > >This is a 10 day SEC email ballot to make a determination on the
> below
> > > SEC
> > > > >motion to authorize the Link Security Executive Study Group to
become
> > an
> > > > >802.1 Study Group. Moved by Tony Jeffree, seconded by Bob Grow.
> > > > >
> > > > >The email ballot opens on Wednesday February 11 2PM EST and closes
> > Friday
> > > > >February 21 2PM EST.
> > > > >
> > > > >Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector.
> > > > >
> > > > >Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >--Paul Nikolich
> > > > >Chairman, IEEE 802 LMSC
> > > > >
> > > > >MOTION: "The SEC resolves that the Link Security Study Group will
> > become
> > > a
> > > > >study group of the 802.1 HiLi working group, effective from the
> start
> > of
> > > > >the March 802 Plenary meeting."
> > > > >
> > > > >MOVER: Tony Jeffree
> > > > >SECOND: Bob Grow
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>