Re: [manet] Request for WG Adoption: draft-yi-manet-smf-sec-threats

Thomas et al.,

draft-yi-manet-smf-sec-threats nicely describes and analyzes potential
threats to SMF.  Thus, I support the adoption of this work.

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Thomas Clausen <thomas@thomasclausen.org>
wrote:

> Dear WG chairs,
>
> As indicated in Toronto, the authors would like to see
> draft-yi-manet-smf-sec-threats adopted as a WG document.
>
> The document is currently an individual document, and can be found here:
>         http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yi-manet-smf-sec-threats-00
>
> The presentation that was made in Toronto, including some motivational
> material for this document, can be found here:
>         https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-manet-11.pdf
>
> An additional motivating factor for publication is, that with the resurge
> in interest in multicast protocols for MANETs, and with the increased
> understanding of the expectations to security that std. track MANET
> protocols are (and, rightfully so) subject to by the SEC-ADs, we probably
> need to “think security from the onset” for any multicast efforts that we
> take on, if we are to be successful.
>
> The intent is to publish this document as an Informational RFC, similar to
> how we did with RFC7186.
>
> It seems the right time to do so, given that we:
>
>         o       by now have had time to acquire some experience with
> RFC6121 (SMF),
>
>         o       have not yet engaged on moving SMF to standards track, and
> to do so we
>                 must understand and address security better
>
>
> +1

>         o       while we not (yet) have committed to a group-oriented
> multicast protocol,
>                 discussions and interest has resurged with someone
> actively pushing for
>                 that -- and I’d bet that there would be lessons to share
> into such an activity.
>

> Developing group-oriented multicast protocol is a great idea.
Group-oriented multicast protocol could benefit both communications and
network configurations.

>
> WG Chairs, therefore: would you kindly let us know your thoughts on this
> matter, at your earliest convenience, preferably by issuing a call for WG
> adoption?
>
> Working Group in general: we much appreciate feedback, comments, and
> sharing of your own analysis of and experiences with SMF, so that we may
> fold that into future revisions of this document.
>
> Respectfully, and for the authors,
>
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>

-- 
James Nguyen
Email: james.huy.nguyen@gmail.com