|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: Question on security documentBill, > you are required to have all of your dependacies > at your level of standardization or higher For iSCSI the references to the security document definitely do not create a dependency. e.g.: "Further details on typical iSCSI scenarios and the relation between the initiators, targets and the communication end points can be found in [SEC-IPS]." Regards, Ofer Ofer Biran Storage and Systems Technology IBM Research Lab in Haifa biran@il.ibm.com 972-4-8296253 "Bill Strahm" <bill@Sanera.net> on 18/10/2001 18:50:44 Please respond to "Bill Strahm" <bill@Sanera.net> To: Ofer Biran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "Robert Snively" <rsnively@Brocade.COM> cc: "'Paul Koning'" <ni1d@arrl.net>, <cmonia@NishanSystems.com>, <ips@ece.cmu.edu> Subject: RE: Question on security document Here is the problem. I create an informational RFC that includes compliance statements (I want to use 3Des, AES would be nice, etc.) I create a standards track RFC and point to the informational RFC to provide security I don't think you can do this - I know that you would not be able to go up the standards track because you are required to have all of your dependacies at your level of standardization or higher (It makes no sense to have a full standard dependant on a standard that is at draft standard level) Bob is technically correct. What I hope this group does is pick up the correct verbage from the security draft and put it into the standards protocol documents, or put the security doc on the standards track Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu [mailto:owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu]On Behalf Of Ofer Biran Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:03 AM To: Robert Snively Cc: 'Paul Koning'; cmonia@NishanSystems.com; ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: Question on security document Bob, The intention of the security document was tutorial, elaborated discussion, motivations and more detailed guidelines and recommendations for the security aspects. The "official" mandatory statements are only in the standard RFCs. I'm not sure about the IETF rule for informational RFC but I don't see a problem with MUST statements there as long as they are in sync with the corresponding standard RFC. Regards, Ofer Ofer Biran Storage and Systems Technology IBM Research Lab in Haifa biran@il.ibm.com 972-4-8296253 Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM>@ece.cmu.edu on 18/10/2001 17:35:35 Please respond to Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM> Sent by: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu To: "'Paul Koning'" <ni1d@arrl.net>, cmonia@NishanSystems.com cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: Question on security document Paul, I rather prefer to see the security mandates carried in the primary documents, as our IETF mentors originally proposed. That way, there is less possibility of inconsistent language that may change the primary documents. Then the security document would be a tutorial and remain informational. This will simplify the standardization process, because each of us will only have to read the security document for guidelines to our development of the security section of the primary documents. If we were to make the security document the standard, then each of us will have to read the entire document to make sure that some global restriction does not fall unintentionally on a particular protocol. If we do choose to make the security document the authoritative document (which I would vote against), then it needs a major rewrite to clarify, separate, and make more precise the requirements for each protocol. Charles, If the security document was intended as a draft of the security sections for each protocol, it needs a major rewrite to separate the particular language to be dropped into each document from the tutorial information. It then needs to formulate much more clearly and formally the language that will be dropped into the primary documents. That would be okay with me, but the draft should indicate that the language to be dropped into the primary documents is only proposed and that the actual applicable standards information is contained in the primary document. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Koning [mailto:ni1d@arrl.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:37 AM > To: cmonia@NishanSystems.com > Cc: ips@ece.cmu.edu > Subject: RE: Question on security document > > > Excerpt of message (sent 17 October 2001) by Charles Monia: > > Hi: > > > > I had assumed that one goal of the document was to set > forth the language > > necessary for each spec to pass muster with the IESG in the realm of > > security. If that's correct, I'm concerned that the > suggested change may > > compromise that intent. > > > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Snively [mailto:rsnively@Brocade.COM] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:31 PM > > > To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu' > > > Subject: Question on security document > > > > > > > > > I have a recommendation to the authors of the security > > > document: > > > ... > > The problem, as Bob is right to point out, is that informational RFCs > by definition cannot establish requirements on implementations. So if > you want there to be security requirements that apply to iFCP, iSCSI, > and so on, they can only be stated in standards track RFCs, not > informational RFCs. It may be a separate document or part of the IPS > document it applies to. > > So one answer is for the security draft not to be informational > anymore. > > paul > >
Home Last updated: Thu Oct 18 14:17:32 2001 7284 messages in chronological order |