Subject: Re: [OPSEC] pccw as17557 leak...

From: "Paul Ferguson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:14:51 GMT

- -- Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Yes, in order to demonstrate that there is a long history of discourse  
in this arena, and that it isn't necessarily very productive to make  
the assumption that the participants in this WG are ignorant of the  
various classes of problems which must be addressed,.  Also,  
advocating particular solutions or classes of solutions in absence of  
familiarity with the long history and current BCPs surrounding a given  
problem-set isn't necessarily very productive, either.

I didn't really want to jump in on this exchange, but I feel
compelled to at least mention this:

Just because there has been "lengthy discourse" on various related
issues, I certainly think that much more dialog is needed, simply
due to the fact that serious operational insecurities continue to
resurface. This proves -- to me at least -- that "lengthy dialog"
in the past (historicallly speaking) has been completely and utterly
insufficient.

- - ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:27:20 +0700

On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:

> resurface.

Concur.  However, in order to have a productive discussion, it's  
probably a good idea to a) understand the history to date, b)  
understand the current state of the art, such as as it is, from both a  
technological and an operational standpoint, and c) to assume that  
other participants in the discussion have invested time in both a) and  
b), unless they demonstrate otherwise.

;>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> // +66.83.266.6344 mobile

      If you don't know what to do, it's harder to do it.

                    -- Malcom Forbes

---

From: "Vishwas Manral" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:34:26 -0800

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the mail.

One of the reasons I have started bringing up issues, is if you see
the IPv6 Routing Header
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5095.txt I brought up the issue in January
2006 and very few people payed attention then (The RFC by Joe actually
acknowledges the fact I brought up the issue first).

When the issue was finally brought out by some researchers it actually
became a big issue to be in the news on (CNN/ Forbes etc) and also
caused the Routing header(RH0) to be deprecated .

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017)
>
>  wj8DBQFHxkNIq1pz9mNUZTMRAhA2AKDgc3TuRfhsVIhvRyucu2PTNd0jeACgn8jT
>  bZsi2+f3NtcCmsWEaNPHQ5s=
>  =CtH6
>
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>  --