Subject: [Roll] Security threat analysis for applicability draft

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:25:39 +0100

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the security threats draft. It certainly provides a large 
part of the text needed in the applicability drafts.
However, I am not sure I interpreted the text according to your 
intentions.

Looking at section 7 in more detail, I tried to establish where the 
applicability draft can be complementary to the text of the security 
draft.

 From section 7.1 I understand that key length, encryption algorithm and 
key life time need to be specified. Unfortunately, much of this is still 
in progress and can change with DICE and ACE recommendations.

Complementing section 7.2, link-layer security will probably be used 
today, but in 2 years time?

Complementing section 7.3. Do I understand that using multiple paths for 
reliability reasons should be mentioned as increasing routing security?

Complementing section 7.4. Writing down choices, as already provided by 
the threats draft, will be more realistic than writing down 
recommendations.

Complementing section 7.5. Is this the place one should write down 
physical access constraints or recommend to provide filtering edge 
routers at the border of the system?

In conclusion, I am very happy with the threats document and its 
recommendations, but I see little opportunity to improve on it in the 
applicability draft.

Thanks for a reaction,

Peter

-- 
Peter van der Stok
mailto: [email-masked]
www: www.vanderstok.org
tel NL: +31(0)492474673     F: +33(0)966015248