LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2022-04-21
|
25 | Alvaro Retana | === AD Review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25 === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/NtXjWypcFSlPw0Qv9yqYfy8shhw/ |
|
2022-04-21
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to Damien Saucez, Fabio Maino, Alvaro Retana, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio, Vina Ermagan (IESG state changed) |
|
2022-04-21
|
25 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
|
2022-04-14
|
25 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2021-12-16
|
25 | Luigi Iannone | draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is … draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is targeting publication as Proposed Standard. The document introduces security features, for the LISP main specification, which are mandatory to implement when LISP is deployed in an open environment like the Internet. Because the documents with the main LISP specification are published as Proposed Standard, this document of the same type. The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document describes a security mechanism aiming at providing origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection to LISP map lookup process. In addition, it provides protection against prefix over-claiming attacks, ensuring that the sender of a Map-Reply providing the mapping for a certain EID-prefix is entitled to do so according to what is registered in the associated Map-Server. The whole mechanism is based on One-Time-Keys (OTK) used to compute Keyed-Hashing Message Authentication (HMAC). The mechanism is mandatory to implement in public deployments of LISP. Working Group Summary: The document has been around since 2011, and has been discussed several times. From the beginning, there was strong support, because the WG felt that the having a mechanism to protect the map lookup process was really important in order to make possible have public deployments that cannot be easily attacked. The support of the document has been always present, while the document evolved. The discussion in the WG mainly focused on clearly identify what the proposed mechanism protect or which level of security it provides. The version of the document that was approved during WG Last Call is -12. The document went through the usual IETF process and was even scheduled to be discussed in the IESG telechat. However, at that time the document was "experimental". At the same time, there where the new LISP specification documents that were advancing as Proposed Standard. The security review of these new documents concluded that LISP public deployments, like in the Internet, MUST implement LISP-SEC. So the document was sent back in order to put it in the standard track and make sure that it is consistent with the new specifications. This work has been done and generated a few revisions due to the security review. Early this year (2021), publication has been requested for the main LISP specifications and this document will complete the set of specifications. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is a strong interest in LISP-SEC especially by potential LISP adopters because protecting the map lookup process is key to have a robust system where mapping information cannot be tempered. Even further, LISP-SEC is mandatory to implement in public LISP deployments. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed carefully revision -23 of the document. I had few editorial issues that have been fixed in the follow-up revisions by the authors. The text is sufficiently clear and understandable. Back when LISP-SEC past WG Last Call, I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. During the revision work up to the latest version fo the document the WG has been updated regularly on the advances. No discontent or objection to the modification has been ever shown. I checked the ID nits (output provided on point 11) and everything is clear with the exception of a warning due to the notation used in the document which the idnits tools mistakenly considers being a citation. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As the document shepherd I have no concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I do not think that a additional specific review is needed (other than the usual ones). (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have no specific concerns or issues to point out. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understands and agree with it. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits14237/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (8 December 2021) is 6 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Key ID' is mentioned on line 620, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Only normative references are present. They are clearly identified as such. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no normative references in unclear state. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document instruct IANA to create five different registries, namely: - ECM AD Type Registry, with values ranging from 0 to 255. - Map-Reply AD Type Registry, with values ranging from 0 to 255. - HMAC Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. - Key Wrap Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. - Key Derivation Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. Initial content for all of the above registries is well identified and future allocations is requested to be assigned according to the "Specification Required" policy defined in RFC5226. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No expert review is required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed. |
|
2021-12-16
|
25 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2021-12-16
|
25 | Luigi Iannone | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching |
|
2021-12-16
|
25 | (System) | Changed action holders to Alvaro Retana (IESG state changed) |
|
2021-12-16
|
25 | Alvaro Retana | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead |
|
2021-12-16
|
25 | Luigi Iannone | draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is … draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is targeting publication as Proposed Standard. The document introduces security features, for the LISP main specification, which are mandatory to implement when LISP is deployed in an open environment like the Internet. Because the documents with the main LISP specification are published as Proposed Standard, this document of the same type. The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document describes a security mechanism aiming at providing origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection to LISP map lookup process. In addition, it provides protection against prefix over-claiming attacks, ensuring that the sender of a Map-Reply providing the mapping for a certain EID-prefix is entitled to do so according to what is registered in the associated Map-Server. The whole mechanism is based on One-Time-Keys (OTK) used to compute Keyed-Hashing Message Authentication (HMAC). The mechanism is mandatory to implement in public deployments of LISP. Working Group Summary: The document has been around since 2011, and has been discussed several times. From the beginning, there was strong support, because the WG felt that the having a mechanism to protect the map lookup process was really important in order to make possible have public deployments that cannot be easily attacked. The support of the document has been always present, while the document evolved. The discussion in the WG mainly focused on clearly identify what the proposed mechanism protect or which level of security it provides. The version of the document that was approved during WG Last Call is -12. The document went through the usual IETF process and was even scheduled to be discussed in the IESG telechat. However, at that time the document was "experimental". At the same time, there where the new LISP specification documents that were advancing as Proposed Standard. The security review of these new documents concluded that LISP public deployments, like in the Internet, MUST implement LISP-SEC. So the document was sent back in order to put it in the standard track and make sure that it is consistent with the new specifications. This work has been done and generated a few revisions due to the security review. Early this year (2021), publication has been requested for the main LISP specifications and this document will complete the set of specifications. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is a strong interest in LISP-SEC especially by potential LISP adopters because protecting the map lookup process is key to have a robust system where mapping information cannot be tempered. Even further, LISP-SEC is mandatory to implement in public LISP deployments. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed carefully revision -23 of the document. I had few editorial issues that have been fixed in the follow-up revisions by the authors. The text is sufficiently clear and understandable. Back when LISP-SEC past WG Last Call, I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. During the revision work up to the latest version fo the document the WG has been updated regularly on the advances. No discontent or objection to the modification has been ever shown. I checked the ID nits (output provided on point 11) and everything is clear with the exception of a warning due to the notation used in the document which the idnits tools mistakenly considers being a citation. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As the document shepherd I have no concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I do not think that a additional specific review is needed (other than the usual ones). (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have no specific concerns or issues to point out. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understands and agree with it. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits14237/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (8 December 2021) is 6 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Key ID' is mentioned on line 620, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Only normative references are present. They are clearly identified as such. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no normative references in unclear state. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document instruct IANA to create five different registries, namely: - ECM AD Type Registry, with values ranging from 0 to 255. - Map-Reply AD Type Registry, with values ranging from 0 to 255. - HMAC Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. - Key Wrap Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. - Key Derivation Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. Initial content for all of the above registries is well identified and future allocations is requested to be assigned according to the "Specification Required" policy defined in RFC5226. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No expert review is required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed. |
|
2021-12-09
|
25 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-25.txt |
|
2021-12-09
|
25 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-12-09
|
25 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2021-12-09
|
25 | Damien Saucez | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-12-08
|
24 | Damien Saucez | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-24.txt |
|
2021-12-08
|
24 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-12-08
|
24 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2021-12-08
|
24 | Damien Saucez | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-09-22
|
23 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-23.txt |
|
2021-09-22
|
23 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-09-22
|
23 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2021-09-22
|
23 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-07-26
|
22 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2021-05-18
|
22 | Alvaro Retana | Shepherding AD changed to Alvaro Retana |
|
2021-01-12
|
22 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-22.txt |
|
2021-01-12
|
22 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2021-01-12
|
22 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2021-01-12
|
22 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2021-01-08
|
21 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2021-01-08
|
21 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
|
2020-07-07
|
21 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-21.txt |
|
2020-07-07
|
21 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-07-07
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2020-07-07
|
21 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-01-13
|
20 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-20.txt |
|
2020-01-13
|
20 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-01-13
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2020-01-13
|
20 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-11-28
|
19 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
|
2019-07-23
|
19 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-19.txt |
|
2019-07-23
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-07-23
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <ermagan@gmail.com> |
|
2019-07-23
|
19 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-07-22
|
18 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD is watching from Dead |
|
2019-07-11
|
18 | Luigi Iannone | Added to session: IETF-105: lisp Mon-1330 |
|
2019-06-02
|
18 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-18.txt |
|
2019-06-02
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-06-02
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr> |
|
2019-06-02
|
18 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-06-02
|
17 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2019-06-02
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to Dead from AD is watching |
|
2019-03-27
|
17 | Luigi Iannone | Added to session: IETF-104: lisp Fri-0900 |
|
2019-01-30
|
17 | Luigi Iannone | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD cleared. |
|
2019-01-30
|
17 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
|
2019-01-16
|
17 | Deborah Brungard | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Experimental |
|
2018-11-29
|
17 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17.txt |
|
2018-11-29
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-11-29
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com> |
|
2018-11-29
|
17 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-10-18
|
16 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-16.txt |
|
2018-10-18
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-10-18
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com> |
|
2018-10-18
|
16 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2018-04-17
|
15 | Albert Cabellos-Aparicio | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-15.txt |
|
2018-04-17
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2018-04-17
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com> |
|
2018-04-17
|
15 | Albert Cabellos-Aparicio | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-11-03
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
|
2017-10-25
|
14 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2017-10-25
|
14 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-14.txt |
|
2017-10-25
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-10-25
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com> |
|
2017-10-25
|
14 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-10-23
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue. |
|
2017-10-10
|
13 | Takeshi Takahashi | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi. Sent review to list. |
|
2017-10-05
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | AD returned to WG to revise from Experimental to PS track. |
|
2017-10-05
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. Tag Revised I-D Needed cleared. |
|
2017-10-05
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
|
2017-10-05
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Will revise to PS track. |
|
2017-10-05
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2017-10-05
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2017-10-04
|
13 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2017-10-02
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
|
2017-09-29
|
13 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-09-29
|
13 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete. IANA Question --> Section 7 of the current document requests the creation of five new registries. Where should these new registries be located? Should they be added to an existing registry page? If not, do they belong in an existing category at http://www.iana.org/protocols? First, a new registry is to be created called the ECM Authentication Data Type registry. The registry will be located based on an answer to the IANA Question above. The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined in RFC 8126. The registry is made up of values from 0-255. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Name Value Reference ----------------+-------------------+---------------- Reserved 0 [ RFC-to-be ] LISP-SEC-ECM-EXT 1 [ RFC-to-be ] Unassigned 2-255 Second, a new registry is to be created called the Map-Reply Authentication Data Type registry. The registry will be located based on an answer to the IANA Question above. The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined in RFC 8126. The registry is made up of values from 0-255. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Name Value Reference ----------------+-------------------+---------------- Reserved 0 [ RFC-to-be ] LISP-SEC-MR-EXT 1 [ RFC-to-be ] Unassigned 2-255 Third, a new registry is to be created called the LISP-SEC Authentication Data HMAC ID registry. The registry will be located based on an answer to the IANA Question above. The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined in RFC 8126. The registry is made up of values from 0-65535. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Name Number Reference ----------------------------------------------------- NONE 0 [ RFC-to-be ] AUTH-HMAC-SHA-1-96 1 [RFC2104] AUTH-HMAC-SHA-256-128 2 [RFC6234] Unassigned 3-65535 Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the LISP-SEC Authentication Data Key Wrap ID registry. The registry will be located based on an answer to the IANA Question above. The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined in RFC 8126. The registry is made up of values from 0-65535. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Name Number Reference ----------------------------------------------------- Reserved 0 [ RFC-to-be ] NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 1 [ RFC-to-be ] AES-KEY-WRAP-128 2 [RFC3394] Unassigned 3-65535 Fifth, a new registry is to be created called the LISP-SEC Authentication Data Key Derivation Function ID registry. The registry will be located based on an answer to the IANA Question above. The registry will be managed via Specification Required as defined in RFC 8126. The registry is made up of values from 0-65535. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Name Number Reference ----------------------------------------------------- NONE 0 [ RFC-to-be ] HKDF-SHA1-128 1 [RFC5869] Unassigned 2-65535 The IANA Services Operator understands that these five actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist |
|
2017-09-26
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
|
2017-09-26
|
13 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue |
|
2017-09-21
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
|
2017-09-21
|
13 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-10-04):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-lisp-sec@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-10-04):<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: draft-ietf-lisp-sec@ietf.org, lisp@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, lisp-chairs@ietf.org, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, ggx@gigix.net Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13.txt> (LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)) to Experimental RFC The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)' <draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13.txt> as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-10-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This memo specifies LISP-SEC, a set of security mechanisms that provides origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection to LISP's EID-to-RLOC mapping data conveyed via mapping lookup process. LISP-SEC also enables verification of authorization on EID- prefix claims in Map-Reply messages. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-sec/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-10-12 |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Last call was requested |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Deborah Brungard | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Albert Cabellos-Aparicio | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-13.txt |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>, Albert Cabellos-Aparicio <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, Vina Ermagan <vermagan@cisco.com> |
|
2017-09-20
|
13 | Albert Cabellos-Aparicio | Uploaded new revision |
|
2017-05-26
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested |
|
2017-05-17
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Manav Bhatia. |
|
2017-04-26
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Manav Bhatia |
|
2017-04-26
|
12 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Manav Bhatia |
|
2017-04-26
|
12 | Deborah Brungard | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
|
2017-03-24
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is … draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12.txt Document Write-up As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is targeting publication as an Experimental RFC. It is the proper type of RFC since it introduces a security mechanism to provide origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection in the LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) mapping lookup process, whose RFCs have already Experimental status. The RFC type is clearly marked in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document describes a security mechanism aiming at providing origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection to LISP map lookup process. In addition, it provides protection against prefix over-claiming attacks, ensuring that the sender of a Map-Reply providing the mapping for a certain EID-prefix is entitled to do so according to what is registered in the associated Map-Server. The whole mechanism is based on One-Time-Keys (OTK) used to compute Keyed-Hashing Message Authentication (HMAC). Working Group Summary: The document has been around since 2011, and has been discussed several times. From the beginning, there was strong support, because the WG felt that the having a mechanism to protect the map lookup process was really important in order to make possible have public deployments that cannot be easily attacked. The support of the document has been always present, while the document evolved. The discussion in the WG mainly focused on clearly identify what the proposed mechanism protect or which level of security it provides. The version of the document that was approved during WG Last Call is -12. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There is a strong interest in LISP-Sec, especially by potential LISP adopters because protecting the map lookup process is key to have a robust system where mapping information cannot be tempered. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I reviewed carefully the document. The text is sufficiently clear and understandable. I have checked the mailinglist and meeting minutes and publication WG consensus has been reached appropriately. I checked the ID nits (output provided on point 11) and everything is clear with the exception of a warning due to the fact that the publication date of -12 document is in 2016. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? As the document shepherd I have no concerns. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I do not think that a additional specific review is needed. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. I have no specific concerns or issues to point out. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? All authors have made conforming IPR disclosure. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There has been clear strong consensus behind this document, showing that the WG as a whole understands and agree with it. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) Nobody did show discontent nor threatened an appeal. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits 2.14.01 /var/www/.idnits tmp/draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12.txt: Attempted to download rfc0102 state... Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it. Attempted to download rfc0103 state... Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it. Attempted to download rfc0200 state... Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it. Attempted to download rfc0203 state... Failure fetching the file, proceeding without it. Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 16, 2016) is 127 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Only normative references are present. They are clearly identified as such. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no normative references in unclear state. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No existing RFC's status will change due to the publication of this document. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document instruct IANA to create five different registries, namely: - ECM AD Type Registry, with values ranging from 0 to 255. - Map-Reply AD Type Registry, with values ranging from 0 to 255. - HMAC Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. - Key Wrap Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. - Key Derivation Functions, with values ranging from 0 to 65535. Initial content for all of the above registries is well identified and future allocations is requested to be assigned according to the "Specification Required" policy defined in RFC5226. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No expert review is required. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The document does not contain anything written in a formal language, hence, no validation and/or check has been performed. |
|
2017-03-24
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard |
|
2017-03-24
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2017-03-24
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2017-03-24
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2017-03-24
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | Intended Status changed to Experimental from None |
|
2017-03-24
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | Changed document writeup |
|
2016-12-19
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | Notification list changed to "Luigi Iannone" <ggx@gigix.net> |
|
2016-12-19
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | Document shepherd changed to Luigi Iannone |
|
2016-12-19
|
12 | Luigi Iannone | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2016-11-16
|
12 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-12.txt |
|
2016-11-16
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2016-11-16
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Fabio Maino" <fmaino@cisco.com>, "Vina Ermagan" <vermagan@cisco.com>, "Albert Cabellos-Aparicio" <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, "Damien Saucez" … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Fabio Maino" <fmaino@cisco.com>, "Vina Ermagan" <vermagan@cisco.com>, "Albert Cabellos-Aparicio" <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, "Damien Saucez" <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2016-11-16
|
12 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-10-03
|
11 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-11.txt |
|
2016-10-03
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2016-10-03
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Fabio Maino" <fmaino@cisco.com>, "Vina Ermagan" <vermagan@cisco.com>, "Albert Cabellos-Aparicio" <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, "Damien Saucez" … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Fabio Maino" <fmaino@cisco.com>, "Vina Ermagan" <vermagan@cisco.com>, "Albert Cabellos-Aparicio" <acabello@ac.upc.edu>, "Damien Saucez" <damien.saucez@inria.fr>, lisp-chairs@ietf.org |
|
2016-10-03
|
11 | Fabio Maino | Uploaded new revision |
|
2016-04-13
|
10 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-10.txt |
|
2015-10-16
|
09 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-09.txt |
|
2015-04-17
|
08 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-08.txt |
|
2014-10-16
|
07 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-07.txt |
|
2014-04-23
|
06 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-06.txt |
|
2013-10-21
|
05 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-05.txt |
|
2012-10-12
|
04 | Vina Ermagan | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-04.txt |
|
2012-09-12
|
03 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-03.txt |
|
2012-03-12
|
02 | Fabio Maino | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-02.txt |
|
2011-12-31
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-01.txt |
|
2011-07-02
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-lisp-sec-00.txt |