Hi,
Thanks for the feed back Francesca. We have discussed this issue during the
interim meeting, so I would encourage Olaf and Stefanie to propose some
text that reflected the discussion before pinging Russ.
Yours,
Daniel
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:02 AM Francesca Palombini <
Hi,
I am fine with Daniel's change to the DTLS profile (which wants to add
motivation on why the DTLS profile is RECOMMENDED), and prefer Göran's
formulation to the Ace framework.
I had to think about it and figured out where the different interpretations
come from, and hence what needs to
On 02/11/2021 04:26 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
> OLD: section 6.2
> "Profiles MUST specify how communication security according
>to the requirements in Section 5 is provided."
> NEW:
> section 6.2 is focused on security but the security requirements are
> provided in section 5. We may
; wrote:
>
> Hi Francesca, Daniel,
>
> I did check with Russ if the new text will resolve his concerns. As the
> new wording still does not seem to be sufficient, I am forwarding
> Russ's
> response here as I am not entirely clear how to proceed.
>
> Any ideas?
new text will resolve his concerns. As the
new wording still does not seem to be sufficient, I am forwarding Russ's
response here as I am not entirely clear how to proceed.
Any ideas?
Grüße
Olaf
---- Start of forwarded message --------
Subject
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-14
From: Russ Mundy
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2021 16:01:00 -0500
Cc: Russ Mundy ,
Daniel Migault ,
"draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize@ietf.org"
To: Olaf Bergmann
Hi Olaf,
Thanks for the
