Thanks for the comments and suggestion. I think I agree with Sam and Jim that this should absolutely be addressed, but is probably better addressed in the arch document, as these are security considerations about using abfab architecture generally. -- Dr Rhys Smith Identity, Access, and Middleware Specialist Cardiff University & Janet - the UK's education and research network
email: [email protected] / [email protected] GPG: 0xDE2F024C On 9 Aug 2012, at 02:48, Jim Schaad wrote: > That would make sense to me. And I am already trying to get as many of the > overall items as possible into that document. > > Jim > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Sam Hartman >> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:49 AM >> To: Stephen Farrell >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [abfab] Fwd: Secdir review of draft-ietf-abfab-usecases-03 >> >> I wonder whether addressing the higher-level security issues in abfab-arch >> makes more sense. >> It seems like the consideractions are architecture not use-case specific. >> _______________________________________________ >> abfab mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab > > _______________________________________________ > abfab mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
