[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
First cut at capabilities doc template
- To: opsec@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: First cut at capabilities doc template
- From: George Jones <eludom@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:55:01 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=q4UIMfCtuOblJlXYYEe1ADyZ7QTC/e/0b3O4mKKgOxmk4PaWaQGM6l/Hl/HgWjlnQCkReGQDOX26nwZ2rJ9g3LiN48OB9XCTvrkhReDQdlcr9PZAF8wqk+ycUiwrd5234PqRwB5HTY151uVlLSd9HXsv3khIuDjfjr4rSfTneP4=
- Reply-to: gmj@pobox.com
Merike and I have talked things over and I think we've got the split
between the operator practice survey doc and the individual
capabilities documents worked out in principal. The Abstract
below is a swag at capturing the split. Please review and comment.
I've recast one of the rfc3781 requirements as a capability to show
the style of the capabilities. Note that there is no justification
with the capability other than to cite practices supported.
The threat model, attacks, justificaiton, etc will live in the
framework and survey docs (Merike has all the hard work !)
One we agree on the format/split, I think the individual capabilities
docs can flow pretty quickly.
---George
--------------------------------------cut
here----------------------------------------------
Abstract
CITE-OPERATOR-SURVEY-RFC lists operator practices related to securing
networks. This document lists filtering capabilities needed to
support those practices.
Capabilities are defined without reference to specific technologies.
This is done to leave room for deployment of new technologies that
implement the capability. Where current technology exists that
implements the capability, it is cited in the "current
implementations" subsections.
CITE-OPERATOR-SURVEY-RFC defines the threat model, potential attacks
and give justifications for each of the practices. This document
does not justify the need for capabilities other than to cite the
practice(s) they support.
Capabilities may or may not be requirements. That is a local
determination that must be made by each operator with reference to
the policies that they must support. It is hoped that this document,
together with CITE-OPERATOR-SURVEY-RFC will assist operators in
identifying their security capability requirements and communicating
them clearly to vendors.
.
.
.
1.2.3 Ability to Display Filter Counters
Capability.
The device provides a mechanism to display filter counters.
Practices Supported.
* Detecting Malicious Traffic (RFCxxxx Section 1.2.3)
* Profiling Malicious Traffic (RFCxxxx)Section 1.2.4)
Current Implementations.
* CLI interface to display filter counters for individual
fitlers.