On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Tom Pusateri <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dear Don, > > Even if Rbridge is not a viable solution, I would still request that we > look at the security impact of any proposal - even if it is just in the > form of a BCP that would be useful for deployment. > > Regards, > Douglas Otis > > > Douglas, > > The security impact of any proposal will be evaluated against the security > section of the requirements draft found here: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements/ > > If you feel as though there are additional security requirements to > evaluate the solution space against that are not found in the requirements > document, please contribute text to this section. > > The documents generated by this WG (such as BCPs) are in response to the > milestones in the WG charter found here: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnssd/charter/ > > If you feel that additional documents need to be written and those > documents are not covered in the current milestones, then you can propose > changes to the charter for approval by the WG. > > Thanks, > Tom > > > > _______________________________________________ > dnssd mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnssd > > Douglas, As I hope to get a WGLC-worthy draft of the Requirements doc out for review in the next few days, I would appreciate any text you can contribute to security requirements. Regards, -K-
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
