Dear Joseph, Thanks a lot for the review. We will improve the security consideration section by including also some of the considerations mentioned in draft-ietf -dmm-deployment-models-04, and also by better scoping current text. We believe we don't need much more in terms of text, as the document is informational, and the actual security mechanisms for a distributed anchoring solution would depend on the specifics of that solution. We can also better reflect that rational in the text.
Thanks, Carlos On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:25 AM Joseph Salowey via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Joseph Salowey > Review result: Has Issues > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the > security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat > these comments just like any other last call comments. > > The summary of the review is the document has issues with the security > considerations section. > > The security consideration section is extremely light. It mainly contains > text > from RFC 7333. It seems that there should be more discussion of security > as it > relates to the different configurations and different cases. Do each of > these > cases have the same security properties and require the same types of > security > controls? > > Are the IPSEC recommendations mentioned in the security considerations of > draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models-04 applicable for all the cases? Should > these be pointed out in the security considerations section? > > > -- Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution": https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
