Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-mext-aero-reqs8

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Jari" == Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> writes:

    Jari> Thanks for your review, Sam. A few responses below:
    >> However it is important to make sure that everyone involved
    >> understands meeting these requirements alone without more
    >> general security requirements would not produce an acceptable
    >> solution.  If the intent of this draft is to state all the
    >> requirements that mext needs to consider in developing a
    >> solution that meets IETF standards and that meets the needs of
    >> the air/space community, then it falls significantly short.  I
    >> don't think that is the intent though; I think this is simply
    >> intended to be one stakeholder's input.  Presumably, even if we
    >> are only targeting deployment in air/space enviroments, we will
    >> look at more general security and management requirements
    >> necessary to make the technology deployable on the internet.
    >> If we're all on the same page on that point, then this draft is
    >> fine.
    >> 

You raise a valid point and I think we have it under control. But its
    Jari> actually a bit more complicated than what you state above.

    Jari> I have treated the document as an input from a particular
    Jari> stakeholder's perspective. I have assumed that there are
    Jari> more general protocol design and even security aspects that
    Jari> an actual solution should take into account.

    Jari> However, I do not necessarily believe that there is a single
    Jari> NEMO route optimization solution that should cater for
    Jari> everyone's needs. The group's charter was written with the
    Jari> assumption that there are different use cases and that their
    Jari> solutions might be different. For instance, federated tunnel
    Jari> servers advertising the same BGP space is likely a good
    Jari> match for the aeronautics requirements, as it can solve the
    Jari> continental dogleg routing problem. Its not clear that this
    Jari> solution solve every other application's NEMO RO problems,
    Jari> however.


I think some of this discussion took place while I was still on the
IESG.  Regardless, I was definitely aware that there would be multiple
solutions for different use cases; I was basically trying to capture
what you say above.  So, what you're thinking is definitely in
alignment with what I was thinking when I wrote my review.