Subject: FW: comment on architecture

From: "Yang, Lily L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 14:33:31 -0700

Ram -- Thanks for the comment. I will incorporate that into the next rev.
Lily

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: comment on architecture

Hello Lily,

Architecture document describes the  security message exchange between FE
Manager and CE manager that its ok, as CEmanager and FEmanager are
considered
outside scope of Forces.

But  the security message exchange is being described between FE and CE  in
section 4.2.2. This is not within the scope of Forces protocol.
We had these discussion in the requirements meeting couple of month back and
RamD and Todd is aware of this and we have made
explicit statement in requirement that key management etc are not part of
the Forces.

All key establishment ,rekeying etc  are  leveraged  to TLS or IPsec or
other  underlying existing security framework .

 FEManager and CEManger  configures all the security attributes using those
information FE and CE communicates and there is no need to have any explicit
security negotiation between them.

IMHO we can remove the  explicit "Security message " in section 4.2.2.

Regards
Ramg