Subject: [I2nsf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:08:41 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-2: If no 2119 keywords are used, please remove the boilerplate. But if you do
need to keep it, please use the updated boilerplate from 8174, since there are
a number of lower case versions of 2119 keywords.

-6.2: first bullet: I am always worried about text advising that "closed
environments" have lower security requirements. That has proven false so many
times we really shouldn't be encouraging it. This is especially worrisome since
the first paragraph of section 11 talks about the importance of "trustworthy,
robust, and fully secured access".

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:18:33 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 24, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Thanks, I have been catching this, but must have missed it in this draft.

> robust, and fully secured access".

Yes, good catch.  Was 'isolated' the intent here?  If so, that's fine to assume a higher level of trust, but unlikely to be using I2NSF.

Thanks,
Kathleen 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I2nsf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf