Re: [Ideas] Kathleen Moriarty's Block on charter-ietf-ideas-00-03: (with BLOCK)

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Kathleen.  To me this was such a given, that I did not even 
consider it to put into the charter.

My bad.

What work I have personally done in this direction was to use HIP as the 
meta-data transport so it was protected.  But in this more 'open' 
approach, it will have to be more expllicit.

Bob

On 09/28/2017 10:05 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> Thanks, Alvaro!
>
> I think that would be a big improvement, but maybe adding in the word
> requirements so that it sticks a bit more in the resulting work.  How
> about:
>
> - Security analysis of the complete system, including authentication,
> authorization requirements and protection of any metadata.
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Kathleen!
>>
>> I agree.  Do you want to suggest something, or would something line this be ok:
>>
>> - Security analysis of the complete system, including authentication, authorization and protection of any metadata.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>>
>> On 9/28/17, 9:37 AM, "Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BLOCK:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I'd like to see an explicit mention of security in the charter text itself in
>> terms of how the metadata will be protected or that it will be protected in
>> some way.   While the threats draft is helpful, the WG should be bound to
>> consider security and provide it with this identifier/locator service.
>>
>>
>>
>
>