On 02/08/2018 12:30, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... > In particular, in its current form, it's not clear to me why this document > is targeting the standards-track -- there are lots of places where > determinations of what works best or how to do some things is left for > future work.
We had no choice, because this is a normative reference for GRASP, since GRASP requires at least one secure transport substrate. It's true, I think, that the draft could do a better job of separating the well-defined normative requirements from the issues that are to a considerable extent implementation-dependent. But I don't agree that it's at the Experimental stage, because it has a pedigree in proprietary code. Please consider that it is only asking for *Proposed* Standard status. > I also think the document needs to be more clear about what security > properties it does or does not intend to provide: I agree that this could be more clearly stated. By implication, it's this: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15#section-2.5.1 Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
