Re: RDDP WG Seoul minutes

John Hufferd <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.rddp
Message-ID <OF65689339.EAB9940E-ON08256E65.00707353-08256E65.00720EB1@us.ibm.com>
David,
In addition to the information you stated below:

 Section 9 - Should we require IPsec, and therefore implement 
  this section, or make it optional? Suggestion that it be made 
  "mandatory-to-implement, optional-to-use." It was observed that 
  IPS had a similar section because it needed it. Also, now that 
  there is the IKEv2 specification to refer to, the problem is no longer 
  so difficult to document.  Look at IKEv2 and new "Cryptographic
  Algorithms for IKEv2" draft.  If these are used this section in
  the RDDP security draft may not be necessary, as an IKEv2
  reference will be adequate. 

  (4) Core question: Should we say that IPsec is mandatory for RDDP? 
  Secondary question: What parts do we actually require? (IKEv2?) 
  Take to list! Also, take to NFSv4 WG the next day. (NFS has no 
  such requirement currently, and has its own RPCSEC_GSS security 
  support). 

  The mandatory security item generated significant discussion but was 
  highly inconclusive. It was observed that mandatory-to-implement 
  would be a significant enhancement to the review approval process. 

There also was a discussion about the additional touching/moving of data 
that would be required for things like RPCSEC_GSS security.  The 
discussion focused around: if IPSec was used then the 
cryptographic/encryption action could be taken before the data was placed 
so that no additional touching/moving of the data would be needed after 
the data was delivered.  Since the elimination of the extra 
movement/touching is the major focus of RDMA, it maybe seen as a sever 
reduction in the promises of RDMA to use anything other than IPSec to 
secure an interaction.

Anyway, this was also one of the conversation threads that we talked about 
bringing to the list for additional discussion.

.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/System Group, San Jose CA
Main Office: (408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403, eFax: (408) 904-4688
Alt Office: (408) 997-6136, Cell: (408) 499-9702
Internet Address: [email protected]
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.