Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.21] Security study group



Hello Rahul,
Thank you for review.
To my mind, the MN should select a 'preferred'  MIHF. I agree with your 
comment: it is better to use the term 'preferred'  because the use of 
the term ' most trusted' requires an explicit definition of a trust 
model and quantitative trust metrics. 

Best regards,
Maryna

RAHUL SINHA a écrit :

>
> Hello Michael,
>
> Your comments (sent on Jan 15) on my review of the TR were fine with 
> me. I hope Maryna can still comment on the following:
>
>  
>
>  *3. MIH Level Security*
>
>      
>
>     *3.1.1 General Requirements*
>
>     Under MIH based access control, “In some implementations the MN
>     MIHF should be able to select the most well known IS MIHF among
>     all available”
>
>     [Rahul Sinha] <<The term ‘well known’ is not clear. If ‘most
>     trusted’ is what is meant here, then a reputation score needs to
>     be assigned to IS MIHF based on previous transactions.>>  
>
>      
>
>     [Michael Williams] Agree the term is not a security term. Maryna
>     may comment more, but if the IS is a service where several MIHF's
>     are available, the MN should pick its preferred one for the given
>     scenario. Does changing from well known to preferred work?  
>
>  [Rahul Sinha]: I guess selecting a 'preferred' IS MIHF is OK. This 
> leaves the actual selection criterion implementation dependent.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Rahul
>
> ------- *Original Message* -------
> *Sender* : Michael G Williams<Michael.G.Williams@NOKIA.COM>
> *Date* : Jan 28, 2008 20:51 (GMT+09:00)
> *Title* : [802.21] Security study group
>
> Have there been any emails or private exchanges on the work for this 
> group?
>
> There was some discussion of the TR document, is it resolved now?
>
> BR,
> Michael
>