Re: [i2rs] WG adoption - draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-04 (8/17 to 8/31)

As a co-author of the document, I believe the document is ready for
adoption. Feel free to comment so we can improve the document for its next
iteration.

I also support the two documents as it appears to be much cleaner to have
two separate documents.

BR,
Daniel

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:

> This is a 2 week WG adoption call for the
> draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-04.txt which provides the security requirements
> for the I2RS protocol.
>
>
>
> To be adopted, this draft does not need to be perfect, but a good
> direction for the I2RS protocol security.
>
>
>
> Please note that Juergen’s review of this draft has the following feedback:
>
> •       Requirements 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 –
> were ok,
>
> •       Editorial requirements 3 and 4 need clarifications on words, and
> requirement 10 is ambiguous, and
>
> •       Requirements 8, 12, and the multiple message sequence (was
> req-17) are not security protocols,
>
> •       Technical question: Why should we support an insecure protocol.
>
>
>
> A security directorate reviewer will review this draft starting on 8/20.
> I will post these reviews and the document changes.  Please suggest changes
> to requirement 3, 4, and 10; and if I2RS should support an insecure
> protocol.
>
>
>
> Once we get the security reviewers feedback on 8, 12, and the multiple
> messages – I will post the feedback and we’ll discuss real time.
>
>
>
> *Sue Hares *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>
>