Subject: [Detnet] DetNet Security Draft - Update on Scope of Next Revision

From: "Grossman, Ethan A." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 05:30:37 +0000

Hi All,
At our most recent Security Design Team meeting we agreed that for the next revision we would focus on items #1 and #5 below, deferring the others for future revisions. If anyone has any interest in contributing material for the deferred items, please let us know. 
Best,
Ethan.

-----Original Message-----
From: detnet [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Grossman, Ethan A.
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:22 AM
To: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>; DetNet WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-sdt-detnet-security-01

Thanks Lou, 
Yes/support. 

On behalf of the DetNet Security Design Team, we are pleased and excited about achieving workgroup adoption, and we look forward to input from the broader DetNet community. Below is our current list of items which we would like to address next in the draft - if anyone has additional suggestions or would like to help with the next release of the draft, which we are planning for IETF 100, please reply. 

1) We need to make another pass through every section to clean up loose ends, unify the writing style and flesh out some of the statements.
2) Given that the Data Plane has been basically established, we need to extend the draft to address these specifics (e.g. implied by use of IPv6 and/or MPLS-PW).
3) We believe it would be helpful to establish solid requirements before we can expect external reviewers to review this draft, so our intent is to take the various use case statements in the appendix and turn them into more formal statement of requirements that a reviewer could measure our draft against.
4) We need to review and improve our threat model to reduce our chances of being blind-sided by threats we haven't addressed.  
5) The current structure of the document has some "unusual" things about it, for example the section about use cases in which there are statements that are phrased as questions (like "does the threat attack the timely arrival of packets?") - we need to come up with a better way to phrase this information.

Best,
Ethan Grossman
DetNet Security Draft editor

-----Original Message-----
From: detnet [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:14 AM
To: DetNet WG <[email-masked]>
Cc: DetNet Chairs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-sdt-detnet-security-01

All,

This is start of a two week poll on making draft-sdt-detnet-security-01 a working group document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.

The poll ends Sep 26.

Thanks,

Lou (and Pat)

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

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