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

[LinkSec] Consensus on Scope?



There seems to be significant consensus in leaving the scenario of untrusted bridges for a later stage (although the final unified architecture should support a complete secure bridge network solution). It seems we may be close to identify the scope of the initial project.
 
In the last call, Bob Moskowitz recommended to initially focus on the link level and leave the entire bridge network definition for a later stage. If I interpret him correctly, he considers that there is enough work in defining the provider side of the link security specification because it doesn't exist an specification or example from where we can leverage from. This work would involve to specify the (bi-directional) authentication and the link protection components of the unified architecture. Bob please clarify or extend as you feel appropriate.
 
We would need to guarantee that the initial effort defines components that fit the unified and general architecture. Could we guarantee this by imposing a set of general requirements to an initial link specification?
 
If so we could define a gradual roadmap where we focus first on the link components and later on the bridged network components. We could first focus on capturing a complete set of requirements from the unified architecture and define an initial project to specify a link security for 802.3 links. At a later stage, additional projects would be defined to complete the architecture for bridged networks (and/or other links if needed).
 
I would like to solicit opinions and comments on this roadmap approach and recommendations on the specific scope and components of an initial project.
 
Dolors