Subject: [TICTOC] TICTOC Security Requirements

From: Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:10:39 +0300

Hi,

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tictoc-security-requirements-02

Following this week's TICTOC meeting:

1.       We plan to release draft 03 within a month, and proceed to WG last call.

2.       Therefore, I will appreciate if people can send any comments they may have by Aug 22.

3.       There was some discussion about the "proventication" requirement. I would like to suggest to change the terminology in the document, since I understand this term is not very popular.
However, I believe that the requirement for a chain of trust is still an important and valid requirement. Please comment if you think otherwise.

Thanks,
Tal.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:34:33 -0400

Hi Tal,

> However, I believe that the requirement for a chain of trust is still an important and valid requirement. Please comment if you think otherwise.

Given that proventic/proventicate/proventication was defined and used in 
RFC 5906, I would suggest that this work and the Autokey revision work 
coordinate on what terminology to use.  It will be good to ensure that 
they are in sync since the issues are essentially the same.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:38:29 +0200

Hello.

Regarding proventication.
I suggest to avoid this term as I already mentioned in the working group 
session.

Regarding 4.1.2.
I agree that the chain of trust is necessary.  But I strongly suggest not 
to require that the chain of trust has to be identical to the chain of 
time synchronization. I agree that the security mechanism MUST support an 
operational mode in which the chain of time synchronization is included in 
the chain of trust but it should not be mandatory mode. 

So the requirement is that the security mechanism MUST support an 
operational mode in which the chain of trust includes the time master in 
cases where an end-to-end authentication of the master is not possible.

Dieter

----------------------------------
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
Q.42 - Server Administration
Bundesallee 100 
D-38116 Braunschweig
Tel:    +49-531-592-84 20
E-Mail: [email-masked]

Von:    Tal Mizrahi <[email-masked]>
An:     "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, 
Datum:  02.08.2012 18:10
Betreff:        [TICTOC] TICTOC Security Requirements
Gesendet von:   [email-masked]

Hi,

Following this week’s TICTOC meeting:
1.       We plan to release draft 03 within a month, and proceed to WG 
last call.
2.       Therefore, I will appreciate if people can send any comments they 
may have by Aug 22.
3.       There was some discussion about the “proventication” requirement. 
I would like to suggest to change the terminology in the document, since I 
understand this term is not very popular.
However, I believe that the requirement for a chain of trust is still an 
important and valid requirement. Please comment if you think otherwise.
 
Thanks,
Tal.
 _______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc