On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:45:42PM -0700, Edward Crabbe wrote: > All; > > Jeff and I are looking to adopt the following drafts, loosely grouped into > the areas listed below: > > ================================ > Protocol Functionality: > ================================ > > draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-02
I do agree that traceability is an important requirement. I am wondering why this is not mentioned in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03. If it would be discussed in the architecture draft, we likely would not need this I-D at this point in time (wait until we have a clearer view how i2rs will work on the wire so we better understand logging requirements or it might be that logging requirements should not be addressed just for i2rs but in general for the selected i2rs protocol). > draft-hares-i2rs-security > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hares-i2rs-security-00 The author list is impressive, the actual contribution I find kind of limited at this point in time. It is not clear to me what exactly the contribution is nor is it clear to me why an expansion of the security architecture found in the i2rs architecture is needed. If an expansion is needed, why not put it into the i2rs architecture? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
