ION Hangzhou - About IETF

www.internetsociety.org

I speak ab

out

the IETF,

not

for the IE

TF

The IETFOpen Standards for an Open Internet

Olaf M. Kolkman

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]?subject=

Working in the IETF

On the Publication Process and

RFCs

Potential

Topics of

Interest

Context

IETF

Organi

zation

Context

About the IETF | March 20164

The Internet is a

Network of Independent Networks

That exchange

IP traffic

Picture by NLnet Labs, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US

About the IETF | March 20165Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:House_Plans_(Blueprints).pdf (CC License)


Techni

cal

Buildi

ng Blo

cks

Image Source: NLnet Labs Blender model based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:House_Plans_(Blueprints).pdf (CC License)

(design) principles


The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people

design, use, and manage the Internet.

1. Cooperation Respectful cooperation between standards organizations, whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual property rules of the others.

2. Adherence to Principles Adherence to the five fundamental principles of standards development:

• Due process. Decisions are made with equity and fairness among participants. No one party dominates or guides standards development. Standards processes are transparent and opportunities exist to appeal decisions. Processes for periodic standards review and updating are well defined.

• Broad consensus. Processes allow for all views to be considered and addressed, such that agreement can be found across a range of interests.

• Transparency. Standards organizations provide advance public notice of proposed standards development activities, the scope of work to be undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible records of decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions are provided. Public comment periods are provided before final standards approval and adoption.

• Balance. Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by any particular person, company or interest group.• Openness. Standards processes are open to all interested and informed parties.

3. Collective Empowerment Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards that:

• are chosen and defined based on technical merit, as judged by the contributed expertise of each participant;• provide global interoperability, scalability, stability, and resiliency;• enable global competition;• serve as building blocks for further innovation; and• contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity.

4. Availability Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have defined procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair terms. Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND).

5. Voluntary Adoption Standards are voluntarily adopted and success is determined by the market.

Respectful Cooperation Between StandardsAdherence to the Fundamental

Parameters of Standards DevelopmentCollective Empowerment

to Strive to Develop

Standards that are Chosen

and Defined Based on Technical MeritAvailability of Standards

Voluntary Adoption by the Standards Market

IETF Organization

About the IETF | 23 June 2015

IETF Trust

IETF Universe

10

RFC Editor

IASAIAD IAOC

IESGArea Area Area Area Area Area

working

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

group

working

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

group

working

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

group

working

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

group

working

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

group

working

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

groupworking

group

IETF Secretariat



INT

RTG

TSV

OPSAbout Packets

About creating the paths for the

packetsAbout managing

the networks

About the use of the paths to

provide the end-to-end experience

ART About Application Protocols used on the Internet and Real Time

Applications

SECAbout

Security Protocols

(cross area)

siprec

slim

stir

stox

straw

urnbis

uta

webpush

xrblock

ice

insipid

jsonbis

justfont

lager

mmusic

modern

netvc

p2psip

payload

perc

precis

regex

rtcweb

scim

sipcore

IESGArtarea

B. Leiba, A.Cooper, B. Campbell

TransportArea

M. StiemerlingS. Dawkins

Security Area

K. MoriartyS. Farrell

RoutingArea

A. Retana A. Atlas,

D. Brungard

O&MArea

B. Claise J. Jaeggli

Internet Area

B. HabermanT. Manderson

GENERALAREAJ. Arko

appsawg alto

aqm

abfab anima

bmwg

dime

dnsop

grow

avtcore

avtext

bfcpbis

6lo

6man

6tish

dhc

dmm

dnssd

caltext

dprive

hip

homenet

intarea

lwig

ntp

pcp

savi

softwire

sunset4

tictoc

l3sm

lime

lmap

mboned

netconf

netmod

opsawg

opsec

radext

supa

bess

bfd

bier

ccamp

ace

dtn

ippm

mptcp

nsfv4

rmcat

taps

tcpinc

Last Update June 10 2016

IANAplan

v6ops

detnet

i2rs

idr

isis

l2tpext

lisp

manet

mpls

nvo3

ospf

acme

cose

cdni

tcpm

tram

tsvwg

curdle

dane

dots

httpauth

i2nsf

ipsecme

jose

kitten

mile

oauth

openpgp

sacm

tls

tokbind

trans

pals

pce

pim

roll

rtgwg

sfc

sidr

spring

teas

trill

capport

cellar

clue

codec

core

dbound

dispatch

dmarc

drinks

ecrit

geojson

httpbis

18

IETF 95 Participants!l  1002 people onsite"

l  171 newcomers"l  IETF 92 had 1176 people onsite

midweek""

l  55 countries "l  140 here from South America"l  IETF 92 was 57 countries"

! IETF 92 was held in

Dallas, Texas!

IETF 95

Buenos

Aires

Source: http://ww

w.arkko.com/tools/docstats.htm

l

http://www.arkko.com/tools/docstats.html

On the Publication Process and RFCs


IETF standards are published as RFCs• Standards track• Best Current Practices (operational)• Informational and Experimental

RFC series also includes• IRTF (Internet Research Task Force)• IAB (Internet Architecture Board)• Independent contributions

Standards Track documents are maintained by the IETF

• IESG approval: based on consensus process

17

draft

full

proposed

Not al RFCs are IETF standards

Internet-Drafts

Internet Standard

IETF Standards and

RFCs

Proposed Standard

IESG Approval

IESG Approval

old 3 stepnew 2 step


Standard Track

18


BCP

19


Informational (IETF)

20


Informational (IAB)

21

BAR

BOF

ListWG

IETF

Individual

IESG

IESG

IESGIESG

RFCIESG

Different Flow for IETF stream documents

Working in the IETF

How I got involved in the IETF….

(by contributing)

(by contributing)How do you get involved in the IETF

datatracker.ietf.org

http://datatracker.ietf.org

tools.ietf.org

http://tools.ietf.org

Potential To

pics of

Interest

MODERNManaging, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, & Registering telephone Numbers

DrinksData for Reachability of Inter/tra-NetworK SIP

Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies

Ecrit

Photo credit: Glen Edelson - https://www.flickr.com/photos/glenirah/

StirSecure Telephone Identity Revisited

IESGArtarea


TransportArea


Security Area


RoutingArea

A. Retana A. Atlas,

D. Brungard

O&MArea


Internet Area


GENERALAREAJ. Arko

appsawg alto

aqm

abfab anima

bmwg

dime

dnsop

grow

avtcore

avtext

bfcpbis

6lo

6man

6tish

dhc

dmm

dnssd

caltext

dprive

hip

homenet

intarea

lwig

mif

netext

ntp

pcp

savi

softwire

sunset4

tictoc

l3sm

lime

lmap

mboned

netconf

netmod

opsawg

opsec

radext

supa

bess

bfd

bier

ccamp

ace

dtn

ippm

mptcp

nsfv4

rmcat

storm

taps

tcpinc

Last Update Feb 16, 2016

IANAplan

v6ops

detnet

i2rs

idr

isis

l2tpext

lisp

manet

mpls

nvo3

ospf

acme

cose

cdni

cellar

clue

codec

core

dbound

dispatch

dmarc

drinks

ecrit

eppext

geojson

httpbis

ice

imapapnd

insipid

jsonbis

justfont

lager

mmusic

modern

netvc

p2psip

payload

perc

precis

rtcweb

scim

sipcore

siprec

slim

stir

stox

straw

tzdist

urnbis

uta

webpush

xrblock

tcpm

tram

tsvwg

curdle

dane

dice

dots

httpauth

i2nsf

ipsecme

jose

kitten

mile

oauth

openpgp

sacm

tls

tokbind

trans

pals

pce

pim

roll

rtwg

sfc

sidr

spring

teas

trill

DOTSDoS Open Threat Signaling

“The DOTS protocols are therefore not concerned with the form of response, but rather with communicating the need for a response, supplementing the call for help with pertinent details about the detected attack.”

DPRIVEDNS PRIVate Exchange

IESGArtarea


TransportArea


Security Area


RoutingArea

A. Retana A. Atlas,

D. Brungard

O&MArea


Internet Area


GENERALAREAJ. Arko

appsawg alto

aqm

abfab anima

bmwg

dime

dnsop

grow

avtcore

avtext

bfcpbis

6lo

6man

6tish

dhc

dmm

dnssd

caltext

dprive

hip

homenet

intarea

lwig

mif

netext

ntp

pcp

savi

softwire

sunset4

tictoc

l3sm

lime

lmap

mboned

netconf

netmod

opsawg

opsec

radext

supa

bess

bfd

bier

ccamp

ace

dtn

ippm

mptcp

nsfv4

rmcat

storm

taps

tcpinc

Last Update Feb 16, 2016

IANAplan

v6ops

detnet

i2rs

idr

isis

l2tpext

lisp

manet

mpls

nvo3

ospf

acme

cose

cdni

cellar

clue

codec

core

dbound

dispatch

dmarc

drinks

ecrit

eppext

geojson

httpbis

ice

imapapnd

insipid

jsonbis

justfont

lager

mmusic

modern

netvc

p2psip

payload

perc

precis

rtcweb

scim

sipcore

siprec

slim

stir

stox

straw

tzdist

urnbis

uta

webpush

xrblock

tcpm

tram

tsvwg

curdle

dane

dice

dots

httpauth

i2nsf

ipsecme

jose

kitten

mile

oauth

openpgp

sacm

tls

tokbind

trans

pals

pce

pim

roll

rtwg

sfc

sidr

spring

teas

trill

ACCORD BOF

Alternatives to Content Classification for Operator Resource Deployment

BA-BOFShttps://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki

Alternative Resolution Contexts for Internet Naming ARCING

LURK Limited Use of Remote Keys

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki

IEPG

APPSAWG

http://www.iepg.org

The IEPG is an informal gathering that meets on the Sunday prior to IETF meetings. The intended theme of these meetings is essentially one of operational relevance in some form or fashion - although the chair will readily admit that he will run with an agenda of whatever is on offer at the time!

OPSAWG

And individual Area meetings

Encryption

and the

IETF


ContextWe are talking about more than encryption. Encryption is just a tool for enhancing privacy and trust

Encryption | 23 September 2015

June 2013 - Snowden revelation

37

• Undermined User trust;

• Generated awareness• Invoked strong

community and industry action

• Greater dialogue and cooperation on key issues

Review of privacy of data relative to a pervasive monitoring:• Uptake in Encryption• New Atlantic cables• etc• etc


RFC 7258: Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack

38


The term "attack" is used here in a technical sense that differs somewhat from common English usage. In common English usage, an attack is an aggressive action perpetrated by an opponent, intended to enforce the opponent's will on the attacked party. The term is used here to refer to behavior that subverts the intent of communicating parties without the agreement of those parties. An attack may change the content of the communication, record the content or external characteristics of the communication, or through correlation with other communication events, reveal information the parties did not intend to be revealed.


StatisticsTransport security is being deployed!


http://httparchive.org/trends.php?s=Top1000&minlabel=Jan+1+2013&maxlabel=Sep+1+2015#perHttps

Fraction of HTTPS links on Alexa top 1000 pages Jan 2013-Sep 2015

Source HTTPARCHIVE

http://httparchive.org/trends.php?s=Top1000&minlabel=Jan+1+2013&maxlabel=Sep+1+2015#perHttps


Hosts responding to HTTPS and found certificates (full IPv4 scan)Source:University of Michigan


From the a network perspective HTTPS traffic grew from 4%(2008) to 17% (2015)

Source known to author


A CDN now sees 35+% of ‘hits’ over HTTPSSource known to author

Encryption | 23 September 201545https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/saferemail/

Googles traffic from and towards other mail providers(between jan 2014 and oct 2015 incoming traffic doubled)


Developments in the past few years….

46

Google’s SPDY, which

contains TLS

IAB: Turn on

Encryption by default

RFC7540HTTP2.0

Firefox and

Chrome default to encrypted

HTTP2

Windows and Apple

move http2 to desktop

and mobile OSes


Transport Encryption is not the Only tool to increase trust and privacy


dprive

HTTP2

RFC7435: defin

ing

opportunistic

encryption

RFC7465: deprecating RC4

TLS 1.3

DNS qname minimizationqname minimizationIRTF CF

RG new

curves

ACME


• Leads to reassessment of the role of intelligence in the network and the role of the end-users.

Ubiquitous Encryption may have a profound effect

49

• Caching• DPI to filter web

content (malevolent and benevolent)

• Traffic management• Media optimization

Example: Filtering of Wikipedia Article

Example: f

eeding

movie cont

ent to

mobile han

dset

Example: f

all-

back to up

stream

provider


The realities….

“Everything is in the clear” approach is clearly unworkable

Encryption will reduce the number of parties that see traffic

But not eliminate them — content provider, browser vendor, CAs, proxy provider, corporate IT department, …

World still moves ahead on a voluntary basis on what technology is chosen and on what technology a particular party can adopt

Surveillance shifts, not eliminated

Useful technical things done in different ways, not eliminatedSome potential bad outcomes to avoid —- MITMs, regulation limiting security, fragmentation, device control, …

50


When we look at the increased encryption, we should not prepare ourselves to merely deal with

its effects. We need to prepare for a period of increasingly fast evolution in the Internet traffic patterns and technology. Such evolution may include new transport solutions,

HTTP version 3 and beyond, the introduction of new parties (such as caching, CDN, or P2P entities),

new types of security (such as content-based security), and other things that we cannot foresee

at this point

Jari Arkko & Göran Erikssonin their contribution to the Manrew Workshop

https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/marnew/

“making networks unmanageable to mitigate PM (Pervasive Monitoring) is not an acceptable outcome”

RFC 7258

https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/marnew/

Date post:	13-Jan-2017
Category:	Technology
Upload:	deploy360-programme-internet-society
View:	185 times
Download:	0 times

ION Hangzhou - About IETF

Technology