Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
One small point.....
--On 11. august 2005 07:52 -0700 Michael Thomas <thomasm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Michael, you've had some quite concrete responses which I hope
have clarified things, but I really want to say that making
Internet protocols secure isn't a hoop jumping exercise; it's
more like a survival requirement, and has been for ten years
at least.
Where did I say that? My issue is that if people are going
to invoke process, they should be prepared to define what
the process is. And not just hand waving; concrete pointers
to documents that have been through the rough consensus
mechanism so that all parties can shoot for a common
goal.
I did not hear at any stage Russ claiming that asking for a threat
analysis was "invoking process". He was asking for information that
would allow him to make up his mind about whether or not to support DKIM
becoming a WG.
Then maybe we can call it a "process gate", or something else
entirely. My main point still remains: if you're going to
impose conditions, it seems only fair that the conditions
be understandable by all concerned, and most especially if
multiple people are calling for the same process gate that
they actually _agree_ on what constitutes at least the form
of fulfillment. This conversation here has thus far not
relieved any of my unease that there really is any such
agreement across all those who think this is a good process
gate.
As far as I know, there is no formal process called "ask for a threat
analysis". Some people would argue that there should be, and if that
argument were to be adopted, it should certainly have guidance attached
to it.
My feeling is that it's probably a good thing for requirements
drafts to talk about. In the case of a security protocol, it
seems very reasonable that requirements are derived at least in
part from the threats they are intended to address. Non-security
protocols would probably do very well to consider up front what
the security requirements are in any solution space.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf