Issue179

Issue Title Complexity of security transfer attributes
Document: GIST Protocol Specification v11 Section: 3.7, 5.7.3, B.1
Category: Editorial Priority: Must Fix
Status: Text Proposed

Created on 2007-02-12.11:21:59 by reh, last changed 2007-02-13.16:19:40.

Messages
msg499 Author: reh Date: 2007-02-13.16:19:40
The attribute descriptions in 3.7 (stages 2 and 7 of the example) have been
updated and generalised.

The relevant text in 5.7.3 is updated to:

                                                          Support
   for this protocol in conjunction with TCP is REQUIRED; associations
   using it can carry messages with transfer attributes requesting
   confidentiality or integrity protection.  

and in B.1 for the description of the message transfer attributes argument to
SendMessage:

      Security:  This attribute allows the NSLP to specify what level of
         security protection is requested for the message (such as
         'integrity' or 'confidentiality') ...
msg483 Author: reh Date: 2007-02-12.11:21:59
From Sam Hartman:

At several points in the document, the text refers to the secure attribute
passed from the NSLP to GIST as if it is a boolean.  Clearly there are a number
of potential security services including integrity, confidentiality,
authenticotion of one or both parties, etc.  While it would be nice to think of
security as a true/false switch this seems misleading.
History
Date User Action Args
2007-02-13 16:19:40rehsetstatus: No Discussion -> Text Proposed
messages: + msg499
2007-02-12 11:21:59rehcreate