As the Security Advisor for Anima, I have reviewed draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-01
and have the following comments: Editorial nits: Section 4.6 : ACP's full description should be called out as its the first instance of its use in this draft. Section 7.1: "general concepts, such as sitting on top of the ANI, etc." seems to be a dangling sentence (at least ill formed). Section 7.2 typo in several references: "Enrolment" -> Enrollment Comments: Section 6: - Self-protecting against what attacks? All possible attacks (hard to predict) or is it "known" attacks as described where? - All protocols are secure by default implies that all protocols a configured by default to be encrypted to provide both confidentiality and integrity? Section 6.2: is a device = autonomic node? Section 6.3: the MASA is the implied CA as well? Section 7.2 (as a whole): seems to be incomplete....are constrained vs. unconstrained nodes explained elsewhere? This description seems to imply its definition being in this section, but perhaps more text is missing? Section 10: - The security considerations should discuss the potential for malware, e.g. a node that has either been misconfigured or infected. - Should there be privacy considerations as potential topology and identities be disclosed especially during discovery and bootstrap? Nancy
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
