Re: [weirds] draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Wed, 22 October 2014 17:51 UTC

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>, "draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09
Thread-Index: AQHP5uDcPsELcqXJ5UiVxA6l2ir9qpw8c3vQ
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:51:09 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F494F1A0A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D797C6138@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D797C6138@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/weirds/F7Pvx31IV3HvvICgh9zD9SuX3QM
Cc: "ops-ads@tools.ietf.org" <ops-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "ops-dir@tools.ietf.org" <ops-dir@tools.ietf.org>, "weirds@ietf.org" <weirds@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [weirds] draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09
Precedence: list

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acm@research.att.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:26 AM
> To: draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ops-dir@tools.ietf.org; ops-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09
> 
> OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09
> 
> OPS-DIR reviews are primarily for the ops-area directors.
> Authors should treat this review as they would any
> LAST CALL comments.
> 
> Summary: Ready, one suggestion below, also see SEC-DIR review
> when available.
> 
> regards,
> Al
> 
> One goal of RDAP is to provide security services that
> do not exist in the WHOIS protocol.  RDAP itself
> is described in multiple documents.
> This document describes information security services for RDAP,
> including authentication, authorization,
> availability, data confidentiality, and data integrity.
> It provides the requirements for selected security protocols
> from among many choices.  Where multiple choices are allowed,
> interoperability has been considered and addressed (sec 3.1).
> 
> However, the sentence at the end of 3.1:
>    Work on HTTP authentication methods continues.  RDAP ought to be
>    agile enough to support additional methods as they are defined.
> 
> cannot be a requirement, and it might be phrased more positively
> as:
>    Work on HTTP authentication methods continues. RDAP is designed to
> be
>    agile enough to support additional methods as they are defined.
> (assuming others agree this is true)

Thank you. I'll make this change.

Scott

Re: [weirds] draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-09 Hollenbeck, Scott