Subject: [Speermint] Security section for speermint requirement - new text in draft-05

From: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:18:27 -0600

Hi,

   I've posted an updated requirements draft last week:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-05.txt.
   It contains the changes per the wg discussions to date, see the diff
- let me know if I missed anything

   The discussions at the IETF#71 on
draft-ietf-speermint-requirements-04 concluded that the security
requirement section should be reworked entirely.  Below is a summary of
the feedback received at the mike.  Please review and let me know if
this is on the right path, and where to focus to improve the text and
details.

Recap of the comments on the security section:
   To recap, folks at the mike at IETF#71 pointed the following:
- David Schwartz: it has to be mutual authentication for the lookup and
location routing exchanges (LUF and LRF).  The requirement is to secure
both the query and the response.  Dan York and Cullen re-iterated the
comment in support of mutual authentication at least for the LUF and
LRF.
- Dan York (and Mark): remove TLS and all the details in the current
section as this looks more like an implementation guide, not
requirements
- Brian Rosen: TLS is not the only option.  Carriers want to use IPSec,
VPNs.
- Jon Peterson: the requirements at this level would at best be talking
about the properties that we wanted.  Confidentiality, integrity, etc.
Those would be good things to capture.  This is the kind of text to be
in there.
- Dan York: be a mechanism to securely exchange the signaling
(confidentiality and integrity to protect) and leave the protocol
implementations for later. 

Comments and additional input welcome.  I may be able to spin another
update before Monday if I get enough comments.

Jean-Francois.

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint