Pekka Savola | 16 Jan 13:04 2006

Re: Review Comments

Hi Hannes -- thanks for comments, hopefully this will trigger some 
very useful discussion.. inline,

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> - incorporate the threats draft into the framework draft.
> if you only focus on the above-described case then the protocol is
> pretty simple and the security threats should focus on the protocol you
> want to develop. you don't want to describe all the security threats
> that can happen in a network.
> - make the framework document shorter. try to make it as short as possible.
> make the long story short: "you want to configure policies at the end
> host to perform firewalling functionality." that's it. we don't need to
> give a tutorial about firewalls. it is a deployment choice whether you
> want to use firewalls at the end host, at all network elements or only
> at the edges (or as a combination of all this). this is not relevant for
> the goal you try to accomplish.

I think I agree with the main thrust of your comments.  However, I'm 
not certain folks here have a clear picture on what each document 
should contain..

You seem to think there is no need to write a problem statement and/or 
justify why the work is needed, just go straight to the framework (and 
the threat model).  That justification takes a lot of space in the 
framework document as-is, and as it's a bit introductory (and 
controversial) it doesn't always generate warm feelings..

However, I believe that if we don't write about it somewhere, the 
issue is going to come up.  Do you think that text is necessary?  If 
so, where should it be -- a separate document?

The rest of the non-integral part of the framework is discussion of 
the attributes of that the solution would likely fulfill.  That should 
probably go somewhere as well, though I could be convinced it doesn't 
need to belong to the framework document.

Based on this, maybe the document structure should be something like:
  - draft-foo-distsec-background (how we got here, something about the
problem statement etc. if needed)
  - draft-foo-distsec-framework (generic and short, including threat model
discussions and problem statement)
  - draft-foo-distsec-solutionism (or whatever, which could include more details
of a possible solution)

What's your view on where the different parts of text should go, (and 
if any) which should simply be thrown away?


Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings