Proposed 'agenda' for the firewall profile portion of the Actuator Profile meeting

["Brule, Joseph M" <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>]

All,

 

I took the liberty of uploading a set of slides to stimulate discussion on the actuator profile meeting.  (https://meet.lucidmeetings.com/meeting/188021#meeting-attendees-table_f=&meeting-attendees-table_p=0&meeting-attendees-table_s=0&meeting-attendees-table_d=false&meeting-attendees-table_e=30 )  If you are unable to get to the slides, let me know ASAP and I will get them to you via other means. 

 

In a perfect world, I would like to get a CSD up to the Technical Committee (circa Ma16) if for no other reason to ensure we are on a good path. 

Here is a list of items that I would like to discuss on the Wednesday AP SC web conference.  I know that this is an ambitious list and we are not going to cover everything: 

• Ip-connection target:  In the case of an incomplete five-tuple, are the unpopulated fields 'any', 'all', leave to implementer?  Logical AND, or logical OR?
• Ip-addr:  Do we keep this as an option and if so, do we map it to the (optional) ap-slpffw object?
• End-time, duration or both?  (NOTE, if both we need to spell out which is preferred)
• Delete action needs a 'rule-number' to support:

• Prepend/ append option?
• Rule-number option?
• Both?   

• Reject:  Source only?  Or Source and/or dest?
• Consensus on the ap-slpffw target? 

 

General question:  Should all of the profile specific options have a prefix such as slpf- ?  (to avoid namespace collision) 

We also have the issue of 'unsolicited response' 

 

BTW, the slides DO NOT reflect any sort of consensus.  The intent was to stimulate discussion.   

 

VR

 

Joe Brule