Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

While I can live with the change you propose, I do not think it improves 
the document in any way.

Yours,
Joel

On 5/27/15 12:50 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Hi, Ben,
>
...
>
> “Reevaluated” is significantly better, of course. Here’s another proposal:
>
> "The architecture described here is different from the current model, and
> moving to the new model could lead to different security arrangements and
> modeling. In the SFC architecture, a relatively static topologically-dependent
> deployment model is replaced with the chaining of sets of service functions.
> This can change the flow of data through the network, and the security and
> privacy considerations of the protocol and deployment will need to be
> reevaluated in light of the model.”
>
> Simon, Ben, Joel, Jim, Thomas, Alia, WG,
>
> Thoughs?
>
> — Carlos.
>
>> The word "reevaluated" is intended to indicate that a new analysis should
>> be performed, but not that a different conclustion must necessarily be
>> reached.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> P.S. "consdierations" in the second paragraph of section 6 is a typo
>