Re: [Ace] secdir review of draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-14

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think that could work for me. If the changes address the initial concerns, we may publish these changes in the coming days.

Yours,.
Daniel
________________________________
From: Stefanie Gerdes <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 8:51 AM
To: Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>; Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>; Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
Cc: Göran Selander <goran.selander=[e-mail]>; Russ Mundy <[e-mail]>; Olaf Bergmann <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ace] secdir review of draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-14

Hi Daniel,

On 02/16/2021 04:53 PM, Daniel Migault wrote:

> Section 5:
> OLD
> "Profiles MUST specify a communication security protocol that provides
>    the features required above."
> NEW
> "Profiles MUST specify at least one communication security protocol that provides the features required above."
>
> <mglt>
> I have the impression that with MUST specify one expects a mandatory protocol to be provided. Would the following text be acceptable ?
>
> NEW2:
> "Profiles RECOMMENDs at least one communication security protocol that provides the features required above."
> </mglt>

I don't understand it like that but I see your point. But I think
"RECOMMENDS" leaves too much wiggle room :). The profiles could then
omit the protocols completely, which I think is a bad idea. Implementers
should have at least one example how the communication between C and AS
is protected. Since we don't provide it in the framework we must have it
in the profiles. How about:

NEW3:
"Profiles MUST specify at least one communication security protocol that
provides the features required above as an example how the respective
communication can be secured."

Viele Grüße
Steffi