As suggested by Brian, I re-read the draft, and changed the general wording in some places regarding "work in progress", etc. I now call this AN phase 1, and explain that there may be more phases.
Changed the security section almost completely, taking into account the comments received. Specifically, pointing out the threats on the ACP. I was about to add a comparison to the security of the routing system, but in the end decided against. Folks - please review and let me know how this reads.
In the security section we had the phrase: "AN messages are liable to be exposed to third parties on any unprotected Layer 2 link." I think this is only true for specific discovery-like messages like GRASP M_FLOOD, but by default most AN messages are inside the ACP and thus encrypted. So I suggest to change this rather scary sounding sentence, and point out that only specific messages are unprotected, and point to section 2.5.2 of the GRASP draft.
Updated a few references, editorial stuff, etc.I suggest the draft is ready for WGLC, and would request the chairs to issue that call.
Michael
<<< text/html; charset=UTF-8; name="Diff: draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-03.txt - draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-04.txt.html": Unrecognized >>>
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
