[dmsc] Re: [DMSC] Architecture document proposals - on the post-onboarding security plane

[Xueting Li <[e-mail]>]

Guigui, Iman, all,
 
Thank you both. Iman, I'm glad to join the compact contribution as a
co-author, and the division of labor you describe works for me.
 
Guigui, I support all four tightenings. The per-effect mediation
condition in particular is the right correction: the deployment
table's rows are per effect, so the condition feeding those rows
needs the same granularity - a deployment-level formulation would
force an all-or-nothing claim, where one bypass on one effect
downgrades every claim in the deployment. Per-effect keeps each row
independently honest.
 
On the MACP side: as Iman says, the revision is a separate piece of
work, and we will keep it self-contained rather than depending on
this document. The -07 revision will add a subsection under Section 5
stating the architectural requirements - the two functions, the
per-effect mediation condition, the normative claim sentence with
its withdrawal companion, and the record of decision including the
admission-state epoch - will extend the AAAP description in 5.2 with
the revocation-propagation and freshness requirements, and will add
the new terms to the Terminology section. The deployment table and
its methodology stay here: MACP states the requirements, this
contribution carries the rationale and the audit procedure. We will
add an informative cross-reference once this document has a stable
name.
 
Happy to review the consolidated version as soon as Guigui brings it
back.
 
Best regards,
Xueting Li
China Telecom



[e-mail]
 
From: Iman Schrock
Date: 2026-09-04 12:44
To: dmsc
Subject: [dmsc] Re: [DMSC] Architecture document proposals - on the post-onboarding security plane
Dear Guigui, Xueting,
 
Yes, that division works well.
 
Guigui, please go ahead and fold the normative claim sentence and
decision-record paragraph into the first cut. Xueting, I’d be glad to
have you join the compact DMSC contribution as a co-author; your
admission-state freshness and per-domain composition points belong in
it. Your team’s related MACP revision is a separate piece of work, as
you described.
 
I agree with the four points and will review the consolidated text
promptly when it comes back. Thank you both. This is much stronger
now.
 
Best,
Iman
 
DMSC mailing list
To subscribe or manage your subscription: https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/dmsc.ietf.org/