Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-cdni-use-cases-08

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/09/2012 10:05 AM, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:
> (speaking as WG co-chair)
> 
> Hi Leif & use-cases co-authors,
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> 
> Regarding : "The security considerations section refers the reader
> to the CDNI problem statement which is fine if all the security
> considerations from RFC3570 (which is obsoleted by this document)
> are carried over to the CDNI problem statement."
> 
> I would say that the fundamental security considerations brought up
> in RFC3570 are indeed covered by the Problem Statement. But
> arguably, there are one or two interesting specific declinations of
> these fundamental security considerations that are more explicitely
> spelt out in RFC3570 (eg "Delivery of Bad CONTENT"). My proposal
> would be that we catch all these "specific declinations" in our
> CDNI Framework document, since this is the target document for
> discussing specific declinations of system-level security issues
> (and each individual CDNI interface document will discuss its
> interface-specific considerations). Does that work? If yes, I'll
> drop a note to the CDNI Framework authors to make sure they
> exhaustively catch any specific declinations of security issues
> that was brought up in RFC3570 and is not yet discussed in the CDNI
> Framework.

Great
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/6kTgACgkQ8Jx8FtbMZnfPTgCcC+kI6kCmX0cvXaRHYX0wrpWf
WaAAn2l+rKNlcDsfls82ON1/P945Hv1j
=YxCr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----