Re: Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics
to me honest, what set me off was
http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric3/wg-descriptions_v1
describing, among others, a routing working group of an fcc "communications security, reliability and interoperability council"
i.e. these folk plan to write policy and procedures for operators, not just write publish or perish papers.
apologies. dorn caught my error
http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric3/wg-descriptions_v1.pdf
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and presumptuous. The goal is specifically to identify strategies for incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups). And, while the SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group that is not yet even fully assembled yet. The working group will debate and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and those strategies would be the output of the entire working group. <tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek> -- Jen
Jen, What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically? Neil. On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and presumptuous. The goal is specifically to identify strategies for incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups). And, while the SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group that is not yet even fully assembled yet. The working group will debate and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
<tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek>
-- Jen
Neil, The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet. -- Jen Sent from my iPhone On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org> wrote:
Jen, What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
Neil.
On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and presumptuous. The goal is specifically to identify strategies for incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups). And, while the SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group that is not yet even fully assembled yet. The working group will debate and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
<tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek>
-- Jen
maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you? On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
Neil,
The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet.
-- Jen
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org> wrote:
Jen, What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
Neil.
On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and presumptuous. The goal is specifically to identify strategies for incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups). And, while the SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group that is not yet even fully assembled yet. The working group will debate and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
<tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek>
-- Jen
+1 -Tk On Sep 4, 2011, at 12:23 PM, "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org> wrote:
maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you?
On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
Neil,
The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet.
-- Jen
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org> wrote:
Jen, What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
Neil.
On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and presumptuous. The goal is specifically to identify strategies for incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups). And, while the SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group that is not yet even fully assembled yet. The working group will debate and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
<tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek>
-- Jen
Neil,
maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you?
Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, I would encourage interested people to contact me. We won't be able to put everyone on the working group (in the interest of having a small enough group to make progress), but we are very interested in having people who can offer their expertise, feedback, and advice throughout the process... -- Jen
On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
Neil,
The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet.
-- Jen
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Neil J. McRae" <neil@domino.org> wrote:
Jen, What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
Neil.
On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" <jrex@CS.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators" -- that would of course be over-reaching and presumptuous. The goal is specifically to identify strategies for incremental deployment of the solutions designed and evaluated by the appropriate technical groups (e.g., IETF working groups). And, while the SIGCOMM paper you mention is an example of such a strategy, it is just one single example -- and is by no means the recommendation of a group that is not yet even fully assembled yet. The working group will debate and discuss a great many issues before suggesting any strategies, and those strategies would be the output of the entire working group.
<tongue in cheek> As for "publish or perish" academics, I doubt you'll find that the small set of academics who choose to go knee deep into operational issues do so because they are trying to optimize their academic careers... ;) </tongue in cheek>
-- Jen
Hi Jen,
Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, I would encourage interested people to contact me. We won't be able to put everyone on the working group (in the interest of having a small enough group to make progress), but we are very interested in having people who can offer their expertise, feedback, and advice throughout the process...
Well, Why not everyone? What would be the criteria to add people into the working group? IETF or any RIR doesn't stop anyone from joining any WG. Every member of the WG should be treated as potential contributor.
Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui.
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators"
This Working Group will recommend the framework for an industry agreement regarding the adoption of secure routing procedures and protocols based on existing work in industry and research. The framework will include specific technical procedures and protocols. The framework will be proposed in a way suitable for opt-in by large Internet Service Providers... randy
Randy, Yes, as the brief write-up says, the group will make "recommendations regarding the adoption" (e.g., suggesting effective strategies for incremental deployment) of "procedures and protocols based on existing work" (e.g., RPKI, BGP-SEC, etc.). In any case, if our current wording is unclear, we can easily revise it to clarify our goals. -- Jen On Sep 4, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security solutions for BGP (e.g., such as the ongoing RPKI and BGP-SEC work). It is not to design new security protocols or to "write policy and procedures for operators"
This Working Group will recommend the framework for an industry agreement regarding the adoption of secure routing procedures and protocols based on existing work in industry and research. The framework will include specific technical procedures and protocols. The framework will be proposed in a way suitable for opt-in by large Internet Service Providers...
randy
participants (5)
-
Aftab Siddiqui -
Anton Kapela -
Jennifer Rexford -
Neil J. McRae -
Randy Bush