Hello Alissa,
If the WG identifies security aspects arising from certain deployment
scenarios, yes it shall formulate requirements for addressing these.
SPRING is upstream to the protocol WGs so its documents should not
depend on the protocol extensions, and, in my view, are thus likely to
progress ahead of time compared to those.
-m
Le 2018-09-27 à 1:49, Alissa Cooper a écrit :
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-spring-01-02: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not clear on the implications of the text about security considerations. If
it turns out that people want to use this cross-domain, will integrity
protection be specified as a requirement? Will other security properties be
specified as required in that scenario? If it turns out that the threat models
require enhancements to the security properties of the underlying protocols,
will the segment routing specs still be progressed even as those requirements
are pitched over to other WGs, or will they not?
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
