Can the authors address my comments and the suggested changes to add a section on security threats and the associated requirements with Closed Environment?
Closed environment deployment can easily give people a sense of secure because the links between I2RS Client and I2RS Agent are guided by a physical "Wall". The false sense of "Secure" is actually more dangerous because it can easily make the deployment miss the crucial security procedure. Therefore, I think it is important to have a dedicated section on security threats and requirement for the Closed Environment. Attached is my suggested text. Linda From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:10 PM To: [email protected] Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Netconf' Subject: [i2rs] 1 week extension to WG Adoption call for draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environments This is a 1 week extension to the WG adoption call for draft-mglt-i2rs-security. Due error in the initial call email, the exact text to review was unclear ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/wwv1o8_mwurB05dN4D2yjr9tNFg). In reviewing the email, it appears that the authors have agree to change or delete most of the concerns except for combining this draft with draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-04.txt. The chairs have decided to adopt both drafts as WG drafts, and make a subsequent WG calls to determine if the drafts should be combined. This draft is at: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-00.txt Daniel has indicated several changes on the list. If you would like to see a revised draft for further comments, please indicate this on the list. Sue Hares and Jeff Haas I2RS co-chairs
I2RS security requirement for closed enviroment v1.docx
Description: I2RS security requirement for closed enviroment v1.docx
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
