Re: [Isms] pre11 comments

["David B. Nelson" <d.b.nelson at comcast.net>]

Wes Hardaker writes...

> Right now the VACM and the security model can be used together to
> grant or deny access based on a particular security model.  With 
> a generic "any sub-transport will do" security model not being put
> in place (TSM) then we loose that ability.

Correct.  Apparently the WG decided early on that, indeed, "any protected
transport will do".  I think what you're effectively suggesting is that we
should *not* have a general TSM, but a series of xSMs, where "x" is a
specific secure transport protocol.  KSM surely falls into that pattern.

Personally, I think it's very late for that kind of revision.  However, if
it can be "hacked in" without much disruption, I see no fundamental
objection to adding that feature.


_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
Isms at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms