Subject: [Trans] [trans] #149 (threat-analysis): Architecture document: Figure 1: Finer-grained distinction between entities

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:59:33 -0000

#149: Architecture document: Figure 1: Finer-grained distinction between entities

 In Figure 1, there's a very good distinction between "defined by CT" /
 "out of scope for CT" interface.

 However I suggest the distinction should be finer-grained to indicate
 which interfaces are specified in  RFC6962-bis, which ones in the gossip
 protocol and which ones entirely out of CT.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-threat-
  [email-masked]       |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement  |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |  Milestone:
Component:  threat-      |    Version:
  analysis               |   Keywords:
 Severity:  -            |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/149>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:09:30 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 We will make a finer-grained distinction in this diagram, i.e., defined by
 CT requirements specs, vs. the Gossip experimental spec, vs. completely
 out of scope.

  analysis               |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/149#comment:1>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>