1 / 5

Security Framework for MPLS-TP draft-mpls-tp-security-framework-03

Security Framework for MPLS-TP draft-mpls-tp-security-framework-03. Editors: Luyuan Fang lufang@cisco.com Ben Niven-Jenkins ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Scott Mansfield scott.mansfield@ericsson.com R. Graveman rfg@acm.org March 30, 2012 83 IETF, Paris.

lorand
Download Presentation

Security Framework for MPLS-TP draft-mpls-tp-security-framework-03

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Security Framework for MPLS-TP draft-mpls-tp-security-framework-03 Editors: Luyuan Fang lufang@cisco.com Ben Niven-Jenkins ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Scott Mansfield scott.mansfield@ericsson.com R. Gravemanrfg@acm.org March 30, 2012 83 IETF, Paris

  2. Contributing Co-Authors • Luyuan Fang lufang@cisco.com • Ben Niven-Jenkins ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk • Scott Mansfield scott.mansfield@ericsson.com • Richard F. Graveman rfg@acm.org • Raymond Zhang raymond.zhang@bt.com • Nabil Bitar nabil.bitar@verizon.com • Masahiro Daikoku ms-daikoku@kddi.com • Lai Wang Lai.wang@telenor.com • Henry Yu henry.yu@twtelecom.com

  3. Status and Next Steps Current status: Completed WG LC Received comments from Gregory Mirsky and Joel Halpern Updated the document to address the comments Posted 03 after the IETF 83 I-D deadline Next Step Check comment resolution with Gregory and Joel Ask for a second LC? 3

  4. Changes in -03 • The threats precede the requirements. • The threats are embellished with more explanation. • The requirements text is expanded, and the requirements are numbered. • The compound requirements are broken apart and stated more simply. • It should be clearer where the requirements “come from.” • Authentication, integrity, replay are MUST. • Confidentiality, key management, and crypto agility are SHOULD - align with KARP (key management for routing and transport protocols).

  5. Changes in -03 • “MUST implement” does not mean “must use” • Some of the unclear phrases have been re-written: “MPLS-TP and MPLS”  “MPLS-TP and MPLS without TP” and others. • Several other suggestions, of a more editorial nature, in the WG LC comments were incorporated. • Some general editorial cleanup and updates to the references are included

More Related