|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] FCIP: authors Teleconf call minutes - 1/15/2002Minutes taken by Bill Krieg, Lucent Technologies ------------------------------------------------------- Attendees: Ralph Weber, Elizabeth Rodriguez, Neil Wanamaker, Murali Rajagopal, Don Fraser, Dave Peterson, Bob Snively, Venkat Rangan, K. Hirata, Andy Helland, and Bill Krieg (designated scribe) Agenda: 1. Security 2. FCIP Authors list 3. Other FCIP Author's list discussion: > Some discussion about D. Black's recent email concerning the number of authors identified in a document. > Elizabeth R. - will discuss this issue with the IETF Area Director to better understand IETF's position. Security: > Reviewed Bill's section 9 clarification comments 1. Section 9.3.2 - Page 37, 3rd paragraph from the top, 2nd sentence ... I'm not sure what the "active SA entires" implies here? Where do we discuss in-active or dormant SA entries? Is there an dormant SAD? Comment accepted ... new wording: "When a TCP Connection is established between two FCIP_DEs, two unidirectional SA's are created for that connection and each SA is identified in the form of a Security Parameter Index (SPI). One SA is associated with the incoming traffic flow and the other SA is associated with the outgoing traffic flow. The FCIP_DE's at each end of the TCP Connection MUST maintain the SPI's for both its incoming and outgoing FCIP Encapsulated Frames." 2. Section 9.3.3 - Page 37, 1st paragraph clarification request Comment accepted: Revise the text from "... key becomes compromised." in the 2nd sentence to "... key may become compromised." 3. Section 9.3.3 - Page 38, 3rd line from top clarification request Comment accepted & modified - no change to original comment but the last paragraph in Section 9.3.3 will be changed to: "When a new SPI is created for the outgoing direction, the sending side SHALL begin using it for all new FCIP Encapsulated Frames. Frames that are either in-flight, or resent due to TCP retransmissions etc. MAY use either the new SPI or the one being replaced." 4. Section 9.3.3 - Page 38, last paragraph clarification request Comment rejected 5. Section 9.4.1 - Page 38, 1st paragraph clarification request Comment accepted and modified Text changed from the "FCIP_LEP" reference to an "FCIP Entity". 6. Section 9.4.1 - Page 38, 2nd paragraph clarification request\ Comment rejected 7. Section 9.4.2 - Page 38, 2nd paragraph clarification request Comment rejected 8. Section 9.4.2 - Page 38, 3rd paragraph clarification request Comment accepted as is > Bill to send clarification comments for sections 5, 7, & 8. > All agreeded to accept Venkat's SF description (item #8 section 9.1) in the draft 2. Bob Snively's Duplicate nonce concern...based on Bob's earlier email >Bob S/Ralph W. lead the discussion and they indicated that this is but one type of security threat and the draft includes wording that clearly states that IPSec should be used in these situations. > Discussion suggested adding some words to the FC-BB-2 draft to address this security issue. FC-BB-2 could address this as a security policy issues. Draft status > Elizabeth R. - Rev 8 to IETF office by Tuesday (2 week before meeting starts). Next Authors call - Wed 1/23/2002 4-6pm EST > Anil R. (McData). Murali will check with Anil.
Home Last updated: Sun Jan 20 12:18:03 2002 8414 messages in chronological order |