Subject: Re: [Sframe] [dispatch] SFRame Next Steps (was SFrame proposed WG charter)

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:23:47 +0000

Hi, 

Please see inline.

On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 11:40 -0400, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> I think the intent here is to have a mechanism that provides a subset of the
> security properties required for a given scenario, but which can be augmented
> with additional mechanisms to provide the rest.  For example, even in the most
> obvious SFrame+SRTP case, there's a division of labor between the two
> protocols, where SFrame only protects content, and SRTP also protects the RTP
> header and guards against reply by network attackers.

Yes, I think that is fine. However, that will require that you discuss the
larger set of threats, and then be explicit what SFRAME solves and which have to
be solved by the transport mechanism used to move the SFRAME messages. 

> 
> So in a sense it is an intersection (in that it does something that is needed
> by all the use cases), but it might need other things to provide all the
> properties you need in a given scenario.

Yes, SFRAME solves the intersection and those threat that belong to the Union
but are outside of intersection will be requirement on the external mechanisms.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------