> Hi Dino,
Thanks so much David for the reply. The pointers you provided will be useful.
> Here are a couple of areas to consider:
>
> (1) I don't see any confidentiality requirements. For this and other NVO3
> security
> requirements, please see the security considerations section of RFC 736
Hi David
Thanks for your comments.
I take note of your comment (2) and pointer.
Here is a pointer to the draft
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-padma-ideas-probl
em-statement-00.txt
Padma
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Black, David wrote:
> Hi Dino,
>
> Here are a couple of are
> The optional requirement for confidentiality was added for potential use
> cases where only some users are allowed to access information about
> others. Motivation: snooping mapping system informatation may be a way
> to track the behavior of other users.
Especially if GPS coordinates were part
Hi David,
5. The mapping system must allow request access (for subscribers) to
be open and public. However, it is optional to provide
confidentiality and authentication of the requesters and the
information they are requesting.
>
> (1) I don't see any confidentiality r
Hi Dino,
Here are a couple of areas to consider:
(1) I don't see any confidentiality requirements. For this and other NVO3
security
requirements, please see the security considerations section of RFC 7365 (NVO3
framework) and draft-ietf-nvo3-arch. The latter contains a new paragraph on
sensit
