Olaf's compromise text looks OK to me. If no one objects I'll submit this later today.
/Ludwig Sent from my smartphone ---- Olaf Bergmann wrote ---- >Hi Carsten, Ludwig, > >I think removing the discussed is not an option as the whole discussion >was about "something needs to be said" but not being clear about what >this is. > >On 2021-07-10, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Maybe we can combine these two into one sentence that covers a common >> requirement? > >The result would be text that makes a profile document its security >requirements and a new profile that combines existing profiles to >document how the combination meets these requirements. > >From Francesca's previous proposal and your previous proposals this >could be: > >NEW^n+1: > > There may be use cases where different transport and security > protocols are allowed for the different interactions, and, if that is > not explicitly covered by an existing profile, it corresponds to > combining profiles into a new one. For example, a new profile could > specify that a previously-defined MQTT-TLS profile is used between > the client and the RS in combination with a previously-defined > CoAP-DTLS profile for interactions between the client and the AS. The > new profile that combines existing profiles MUST specify how the > existing profiles' security properties are achieved. Any profile > therefore MUST clearly specify its security requirements and MUST > document if its security depends on the combination of various > protocol interactions. > >Grüße >Olaf
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
