http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5835 <pre>We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit t</pre> hammondjohnson< at >hushmail.com 2013-04-27T18:01:12 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5834 <pre>Multiple people voiced their support for adopting the document, a couple of people provided specific comments. Nobody voiced their opposition to adopting the document. WG participants have spoken, so the document is now adopted by the WG. Best Regards, Alexey, as a co-chair. </pre> Alexey Melnikov 2013-04-23T15:00:29 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5832 <pre> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : A Profile for BGPSEC Router Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists, and Certification Requests Author(s) : Mark Reynolds Sean Turner Steve Kent Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-05.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2013-04-17 Abstract: This document defines a standard profile for X.509 certificates for the purposes of supporting validation of Autonomous System (AS) paths in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), as part of an extension to that protocol known as BGPSEC. BGP is a critical component for the proper operation of the Internet as a whole. The BGPSEC protocol is under development as a component to address the requirement to provide security for the BGP protocol. The goal of BGPSEC is to design a </pre> internet-drafts< at >ietf.org 2013-04-18T01:31:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5831 <pre>Hi all, We've been working on BGPSEC implementation based on the BIRD software package. It's currently in an alpha state but supports most of the BGPSEC protocol (no confederation or algorithm rollover). If anyone would like to play with it, I would appreciate any feedback. Below is a link to README and patch against v1.3.9 of BIRD. http://bgpsec.tislabs.com/ Thanks, -Mike </pre> Michael Baer 2013-04-16T23:19:29 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5830 <pre> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGPSEC router key rollover as an alternative to beaconing Author(s) : Roque Gagliano Keyur Patel Brian Weis Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-02.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2013-04-15 Abstract: BGPSEC will need to address the impact from regular and emergency rollover processes for the BGPSEC End-Entity (EE) certificates that will be performed by Certificate Authorities (CAs) participating at the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document provides general recommendations for that process and specifies how this process is used to control BGPSEC's window of exposure to replay attacks. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-roll</pre> internet-drafts< at >ietf.org 2013-04-15T21:34:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5828 <pre>The draft minutes were posted yesterday. You can find them at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-sidr. Many thanks to our minutes takers, Jeff and Sriram, who had to keep up with some very energetic discussions during the meeting! It is very much appreciated. Please do review the minutes. Send any corrections or additions to the list. Any changes must be made before 1 May 2013, when the proceedings will be declared final. --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair </pre> Murphy, Sandra 2013-04-13T11:15:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5827 <pre> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Security Requirements for BGP Path Validation Author(s) : Steven M. Bellovin Randy Bush David Ward Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-07.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2013-04-12 Abstract: This document describes requirements for a BGP security protocol design to provide cryptographic assurance that the origin AS had the right to announce the prefix and to provide assurance of the AS Path of the announcement. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-bg</pre> internet-drafts< at >ietf.org 2013-04-12T11:13:33 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5825 <pre>Hi all, We just released version 0.7 of our relying party software, rpstir. This version is primarily a bugfix release with fixes for bugs we found at the relying party testing session at IETF 86. Download: https://sourceforge.net/projects/rpstir/ Contact: rpstir-support&lt; at &gt;bbn.com </pre> David Mandelberg 2013-04-10T17:39:40 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5822 <pre>This is to announce the BGP Secure Router Extension (BGP-SRx) Version 0.3 Prototype Implementation. This release includes extensive performance and robustness improvements, multi router support, re-design/re-write of the Quagga integration, and many bug fixes. BGP-SRx is an open source reference implementation and research platform for investigating emerging BGP security extensions and supporting protocols. The BGP-SRx suite consists of three parts: (1) SRx Server, (2) SRx API, and (3) Quagga-SRx (which integrates the SRx API into the Quagga router). The focus is on origin validation, although it is designed to be extended to path validation. Stub functionality for path validation is included in this version. Additionally, this release contains an SRx client/server test harnesses and a simple RPKI validation cache simulator (VCS). The VCS allows to manually feed ROA information into BGP-SRx server using the RPKI to Router protocol (rfc6810) as well as WireShark modules for debugging. For more information </pre> Borchert, Oliver 2013-04-08T20:28:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5740 <pre>A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6907 Title: Use Cases and Interpretations of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects for Issuers and Relying Parties Author: T. Manderson, K. Sriram, R. White Status: Informational Stream: IETF Date: March 2013 Mailbox: terry.manderson&lt; at &gt;icann.org, ksriram&lt; at &gt;nist.gov, russ&lt; at &gt;riw.us Pages: 31 Characters: 66099 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6907.txt This document describes a number of use cases together with directions and interpretations for organizations and relying parties when creating or encountering Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object scenarios in the public RPKI. All of these items are discussed here </pre> rfc-editor< at >rfc-editor.org 2013-03-22T17:12:20 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5702 <pre>The DDoS mitigation example was discussed before. It appeared there was a reasonable solution. Please see this post: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05605.html Sriram _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr </pre> Sriram, Kotikalapudi 2013-03-20T23:23:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5672 <pre> Interesting presentation here: http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/Cooper_RPKI_BFOC.pdf "The RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) is a new infrastructure to secure Internet routing It’s been in deployment since ~2011 But, it also creates new risks (misconfigurations and takedowns) that could make IP prefixes unreachable" Given we've been concerned (and vocal) about this from an operational perspective since RPKI's proposed "tight coupling" into BGPSEC discussions many years ago... -danny _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr </pre> Danny McPherson 2013-03-20T12:50:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5655 <pre>The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Definitions of Managed Objects for the RPKI-Router Protocol' (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-07.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib/ Technical Summary This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects used for monitoring the RPKI Router protocol. Working Group Summary This document is non controversial and didn't have many WG reviews, but is believed to be a good quality document. Document Quality I am not aware of any existing implementations. Bert Wijnen, one of the authors is a MIB Doctors. Advice was requested from the Ops Ads on the 14th December on whether further review was</pre> The IESG 2013-03-15T21:03:49 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5654 <pre>The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Definitions of Managed Objects for the RPKI-Router Protocol' (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-07.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib/ Technical Summary This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes objects used for monitoring the RPKI Router protocol. Working Group Summary This document is non controversial and didn't have many WG reviews, but is believed to be a good quality document. Document Quality I am not aware of any existing implementations. Bert Wijnen, one of the authors is a MIB Doctors. Advice was requested from the Ops Ads on the 14th December on whether further review was</pre> The IESG 2013-03-15T21:03:49 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5649 <pre>During the first SIDR session I commented that I agree with the need to explore new paradigms for distributing RPKI repository data, but that i was very disappointed with the analysis being used to motivate the exploration. Attached are my comments on the I-D inn question. I have used MS Word with change control to associate the comments (and some edits) with the original text. I rendered this as a PDF, so that list members do not need to use MS Word. I am happy to provide the Word doc to the authors if they wish. Steve </pre> Stephen Kent 2013-03-14T21:03:58 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5635 <pre>Yesterday, Ruediger talked about a 4th validation state for BGP routes (RFC 6811 gives only 3). After thinking about it more, I believe it may be helpful to call this validation state "Uninitialized". Here's why. First, for the purposes of this discussion, we assume that the validating cache has a "complete" snapshot of the global RPKI. The definition of "complete" must be tuned via the validator settings according to local policy, but that's a separate conversation. I believe Ruediger is talking about the actual variable *in the router* that stores validation state. Currently, in the router, the three prescribed validation states for a BGP route are (RFC 6811): o NotFound: No VRP Covers the Route Prefix. o Valid: At least one VRP Matches the Route Prefix. o Invalid: At least one VRP Covers the Route Prefix, but no VRP Matches it. There's a hidden assumption in this trichotomy: that the snapshot has been completely transferred to the router (via the rpki-rtr), and all </pre> Andrew Chi 2013-03-13T14:19:40 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5629 <pre>The authors of draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points have requested wg adoption. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this as a work item. Note that you do not need to comment on the content of this draft at this time. You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting point. Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful. This adoption call will end on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 (extra time because many of those in the wg are busy at the ietf this week). --Sandy </pre> Murphy, Sandra 2013-03-12T17:54:17 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5619 <pre>I'd like to point the wg to a previous discussion of the use of ORIGIN over a few days in October 2012. We're revisiting some of the same ground now. Start with http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05179.html and follow the thread "origin attribute". It was a short but intense discussion, with Shane, Warren, Heasley, Roque and Brian describing some ways that the ORIGIN is currently used by operators. --Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs </pre> Murphy, Sandra 2013-03-11T23:15:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5596 <pre>I have now read this document. [Also, thanks to the document authors, the -01 version is a significant improvement over the -00 version] At the meeting, both APNIC and ARIN said they would like to put these URIs into certificates they issue. This appears to place no burden whatsoever on the relying party. (And some relying parties might actually find these URIs useful for finding applicable CPS documents.) This seems like quite a reasonable document, and I do not anticipate that it would take a lot of working group cycles to process this document. I would, therefore, support adoption of this document by the working group. - Matt Lepinski </pre> Matthew Lepinski 2013-03-11T13:48:16 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5595 <pre>As always, we will need to identify a minute taker and jabber scribe. We can't start unless we have someone taking minutes and the chairs will be busy with the presentations. Note that the etherpad capability lets minutes taking be a collaborative effort. But we still need to identify someone. Please do consider volunteering. --Sandy </pre> Murphy, Sandra 2013-03-11T05:14:37 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.sidr/5594 <pre>But not enough slides. Presenters are urged to send their slides to the chairs just as soon as possible. ASAP. RSN. --Sandy, speaking as a wg co-chair </pre> Murphy, Sandra 2013-03-11T02:53:01 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.sidr