Subject: [midcom] New requirements bullets

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:13:56 -0400

R20: As Pin-Holes may be shared across Middlebox functions, it MUST
        be possible for a Pinhole-Descriptor to be created by one
        function, and terminated by a different one.

Proposal: delete.  We're covered by other requirements bullets.

 R33: The relationship between a Midcom Agent and a given Middlebox
        may be pre-configured through a manual configuration process or
        may be established dynamically through a registration process.
        In either case, depending upon the policy applied to the
        Middlebox, the Middlebox MUST appropriately authenticate the
        identity and credentials of the Midcom Agent seeking to make use
        of its services prior to servicing any other requests from the
        Midcom Agent.

Proposal: delete anything to do with provisioning (the first part) and
change the second part so that 1) the requirement is on the protocol
and not the middlebox, 2) the requirement is the capability to do
bidirectional authentication.  The choice to actually do authentication
is a question of site-local security policy.

 R65: Individual message authentication MUST be used in addition to
        host authentication.  Further message confidentiality MAY be
        administered by employing techniques appropriate to Midcom
        messages.  Simple Source-address based security is the least
        form of security and MAY be permitted only to the most trusted
        hosts.

Proposal: Again, we can't tell network administrators how to run their
networks.  The protocol must support message authentication and message
confidentiality.  That's it.

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Mark Duffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:51:51 -0400

>Proposal: delete.  We're covered by other requirements bullets.

Agreed.

>is a question of site-local security policy.

Agreed mostly. I think R33 should mention message integrity as well as
authentication.

>confidentiality.  That's it.

I agree with your point.  
What does this mean for R65? 
We have already accepted R69 dealing with message confidentiality.  Between
R33 above and R69 I think this is covered and we can just delete R65.