Subject: [spring] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-spring-01-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 16:49:32 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-spring-01-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not clear on the implications of the text about security considerations. If
it turns out that people want to use this cross-domain, will integrity
protection be specified as a requirement? Will other security properties be
specified as required in that scenario? If it turns out that the threat models
require enhancements to the security properties of the underlying protocols,
will the segment routing specs still be progressed even as those requirements
are pitched over to other WGs, or will they not?

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:17:37 +0200

Hello Alissa,

If the WG identifies security aspects arising from certain deployment 
scenarios, yes it shall formulate requirements for addressing these.
SPRING is upstream to the protocol WGs so its documents should not 
depend on the protocol extensions, and, in my view, are thus likely to 
progress ahead of time compared to those.

-m