Security Requirements for the Unidirectional Lightweight Encapsulation (ULE) Protocol
draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-09
Yes
(Mark Townsley)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-01-15)
Unknown
Appendix A talks about modeling DBV link layer security with a number of modules, including a security policy database (SPD) that may resemble a similar functionality in IPsec. I wanted to note that traditionally link layer security has been operated using far simpler policy mechanisms that exists at the IP layer. Typically, security is either applied or not applied; some form of algorithm selection is of course needed for algorithm agility.There are many good reasons for these simple policies, e.g., avoiding complexity, the endpoints stay the same (host -> AP), the endpoints are known to support the mandatory link layer security features, etc. I would suggest that the same may apply for DVB as well.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-01-12)
Unknown
Please consider the comments made by Vijay Gurbani in the Gen-ART
Review that he posted on 28-Nov-2008.
In S4, requirements 2-5 have a normative strength of OPTIONAL.
While I am not trying to second guess the decision reached
by the WG in assigning this normative strength, I am just
curious why the strength was not at least a SHOULD (or
RECOMMENDED)? These seem like good requirements to have,
and keeping them OPTIONAL effectively implies that very
few vendors, if any, will implement them.
In Abstract: s/a range of services/a variety of services
(reason: "range" is used in the line above as well.)
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown