As a co-author of the document, I believe the document is ready for adoption. Feel free to comment so we can improve the document for its next iteration.
I also support the two documents as it appears to be much cleaner to have two separate documents. BR, Daniel On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a 2 week WG adoption call for the > draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-04.txt which provides the security requirements > for the I2RS protocol. > > > > To be adopted, this draft does not need to be perfect, but a good > direction for the I2RS protocol security. > > > > Please note that Juergen’s review of this draft has the following feedback: > > • Requirements 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 – > were ok, > > • Editorial requirements 3 and 4 need clarifications on words, and > requirement 10 is ambiguous, and > > • Requirements 8, 12, and the multiple message sequence (was > req-17) are not security protocols, > > • Technical question: Why should we support an insecure protocol. > > > > A security directorate reviewer will review this draft starting on 8/20. > I will post these reviews and the document changes. Please suggest changes > to requirement 3, 4, and 10; and if I2RS should support an insecure > protocol. > > > > Once we get the security reviewers feedback on 8, 12, and the multiple > messages – I will post the feedback and we’ll discuss real time. > > > > *Sue Hares * > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
