Subject: [Roll] [roll] #133: 9.5.1. Security Architecture

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 03:27:08 -0000

#133: 9.5.1.  Security Architecture

 > === Section 9.5.1[[BR]]
 > *This draft boils down to this paragraph if I'm not mistaken:
 >
 >    A ROLL protocol MUST be made flexible by a design that offers the
 >    configuration facility so that the user (network administrator) can
 >    choose the security settings that match the application's needs.
 >    Furthermore, in the case of LLNs, that flexibility SHOULD extend to
 >    allowing the routing protocol security requirements to be met by
 >    measures applied at different protocol layers, provided the
 >    identified requirements are collectively met.
 >
 > I'm absolutely fine with the first sentence.  I'm even okay with the
 second
 > sentence it gets done at the application layer all the time, but at the
 > application layer they can all point to something that's all specified
 up and
 > has MTI etc (think TLS).  If we end up doing that here then something
 similar
 > needs to end up happening.  If use cases are so broad that they can't
 possibly
 > pick an underlying security mechanism then you need to try again but
 with a
 > smaller net. -- by ST

 It is not clear that any of 9.5.1 belongs anymore.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-security-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  security-    |    Version:
  threats                |   Keywords:
 Severity:  Active WG    |
  Document               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/133>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>