Internet-Draft IETF Network Security March 2026
Rescorla, et al. Expires 3 September 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-rescorla-anonymous-network-00
Updates:
rfc8718 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Best Current Practice
Expires:
Authors:
E. Rescorla
R. Barnes
D. Schinazi
T. Pauly

Security Requirements for the IETF Network

Abstract

This document requires the network at the IETF plenary meeting to protect the security and privacy of its users.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://ekr.github.io/draft-rescorla-anonymous-network/draft-rescorla-anonymous-network.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-anonymous-network/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/ekr/draft-rescorla-anonymous-network.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

IETF meeting participants depend heavily on Internet access during the IETF plenary meeting. The venue selection process defined in [RFC8718] makes a functional network a mandatory criterion:

A critical, but implicit requirement in this paragraph is that IETF participants need to be secure in their use of the Internet. It will clearly have a material impact on participants' Internet use if they cannot use the security technologies they require, or if accessing the IETF network requires them to reduce their security or privacy posture (e.g., by revealing sensitive information).

As expressed in [RFC7258], the IETF considers pervasive monitoring an attack, The IETF has a long history of developing protocols to protect the confidentiality and authenticity of Internet communications, such as IPsec, DNSSEC, TLS, and SSH. More recently, there has been a focus on protecting the identities of the endpoints to communication, e.g., MASQUE, OHAI, and ECH. The security properties of the IETF network should be aligned with these principles.

For example:

This document updates the requirements of [RFC8718] to make these security requirements explicit.

1.1. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2. Requirements

This document extends the mandatory criteria as follows:

This text is intended to ensure that IETF participants can continue to get the level of security that they require when they use the IETF network.

This text is intended to maximize user privacy and forbid any authentication mechanisms which would make it possible to attribute traffic to a specific identifiable user.

3. Security Considerations

The requirement in this document enhances user security and privacy by reducing a network observer's ability to track user behavior. The requirement may make it more difficult to manage abusive behavior by network users, however, the IETF network currently routinely operates in a mode without any user-level authentication, so this requirement does not create a security regression.

4. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8718]
Lear, E., Ed., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process", BCP 226, RFC 8718, DOI 10.17487/RFC8718, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8718>.

5.2. Informative References

[RFC7258]
Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

Eric Rescorla
Richard Barnes
David Schinazi
Tommy Pauly