Re: [Netconf] [i2rs] 1 week extension to WG Adoption call for draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environments

[Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>]

Can the authors address my comments and the suggested changes to add a section on security threats and the associated requirements  with Closed Environment?

Closed environment deployment can easily give people a sense of secure because the links between I2RS Client and I2RS Agent are guided by a physical "Wall".  The false sense of "Secure" is actually more dangerous because it can easily make the deployment miss the crucial security procedure.

Therefore, I think it is important to have a dedicated section on security threats and requirement for the Closed Environment.

Attached is my suggested text.

Linda

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:10 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Netconf'
Subject: [i2rs] 1 week extension to WG Adoption call for draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environments

This is a 1 week extension to the WG adoption call for draft-mglt-i2rs-security.  Due error in the initial call email, the exact text to review was unclear ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/wwv1o8_mwurB05dN4D2yjr9tNFg).

In reviewing the email, it appears that the authors have agree to change or delete most of the concerns except for combining this draft with draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-04.txt.   The chairs have decided to adopt both drafts as WG drafts, and make a subsequent WG calls to determine if the drafts should be combined.

This draft is at:

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-00.txt

Daniel has indicated several changes on the list.  If you would like to see a revised draft for further comments, please indicate this on the list.

Sue Hares and Jeff Haas
I2RS co-chairs