Re: [Roll] draft-ietf-roll-security-framework returned to working group.

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

I do not know why the direction is to have a security framework draft in
our working-stage in the first place, while we still have some issues
related to RPL and applicability, but it was ok to have an informational of
LLN routing threats without *why* and *how* of securing, as the way the
authors focused on threats. Until we complete applicability and RPL
performance (obtain large scale evaluiation results), then we may look into
security techniques related to RPL (documents only need security
considerations section not details), because we do routings (security
functions is done in IETF Security Area).

>That it was presented as Informational was perhaps a mistake.
If not having an informational framework, then I suggest to make the new
produced document attached to a mechanim or protocol (as MANET WG do), for
example: RPL-SEC, RPL.P2P-SEC, etc. without having a new document for
threat analysis.

I ask the WG to discuss this issue,

Regards
AB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I maybe wrong and maybe right but it does not matter if we work as a group.
IETF WGs are always right.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---------------------------
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Michael Richardson
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> <#part sign=pgpmime>
>
> >>>>> "Abdussalam" == Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
> writes:
>     Abdussalam>  I think the document did n't have to explain *how* and
>     Abdussalam> *why*, because this document is an informational
>     Abdussalam> framework not a standard/Best-Practice framework. The
>
> Some document, somewhere has to specify.
> This document was conceived of as going to do that.
> That it was presented as Informational was perhaps a mistake.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson
> -at the cottage-
>