Subject: [Detnet] DetNet Security draft - Discussion of Next Steps

From: "Grossman, Ethan A." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:59:04 +0000

Hi All,
The DetNet Security draft is now a WG draft, and we will doing an update presentation at DetNet IETF 100. At that time we would also like to have some discussion with the WG regarding direction for the draft, and to engage more WG members in developing this draft. So if you have any interest in Security for DetNet, please come to the meeting with your ideas. As a starting point for discussion, I have made the following list of topics. If you have any thoughts on them, or other topics to suggest, please let us know (via the list or in person).
Thanks,
Ethan.
Ethan Grossman, Editor, DetNet Security draft
------------------------------------------------------------------
1)      DetNet Security is now a WG draft, so we need to transition from the "design team" mode to the "workgroup" mode. I don't know exactly how to do that. Our session is toward the end of the week, so we will also have time to discuss this with folks in advance of the session; if anyone has thoughts on this topic and wants to meet up, please let us know.
2)      The DetNet Security Design Team has expressed our current understanding of this topic in this draft, and we believe we are ready to engage with the larger IETF security community to get more eyes on the issue. If anyone can help us make these connections we would appreciate it.
3)      Henrik reviewed RFC 3552 (Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations). My notes from his debriefing were: "We have basically covered the required material in our draft, however our document organization is somewhat different from what they prescribe. However, ours is a whole draft, not just a section, and theirs seems to be more oriented toward web-based applications, so it isn't a perfect fit for DetNet anyway. For now the plan is to keep our current organization unless we get strong guidance otherwise." So another goal could be to specifically ask IETF Security people about whether they believe that we need to implement any more specific conformance to RFC 3552 (or any other precedent) given the above analysis.
4)      We have not yet incorporated any specifics related to our data plane or other architecture-specific decisions into the draft.
5)      We don't yet have a concisely stated set of "requirements" for DetNet Security - we have the collection of use case statements on security in the Security draft appendix, and thus far our strategy has been to wait and see if we are asked (e.g. by the IETF Security community) to develop a more formal Requirements statement (against which the draft could be reviewed) or whether the current understanding and documentation is sufficient.
------------------------------------------------------------------