Hello Gorry, Just a short question regarding the recent changes Michael did on the Privacy Consideration section. I would like to avoid to submit too many new versions after we passed the telechat. So it would be good to see if you agree with the proposed new text and substructure before submitting a new version to the IETF. Just let me know and I will accept the PR and do the further processing.
The changes are visible in the PR under https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm/pulls Best regards Steffen > -----Original Message----- > From: Fries, Steffen <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 8:35 AM > To: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>; William Atwood > <[email protected]> > Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; draft- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Anima] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on > draft-ietf-anima-brski- > prm-22: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Michael, > > The proposal sounds good for me as well. I like the substructure, which makes > it > better readable. I only added a small comment in the PR. > > Best regards > Steffen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 7:43 PM > > To: William Atwood <[email protected]> > > Cc: Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; > > draft-ietf- [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Anima] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on > > draft-ietf-anima-brski- > > prm-22: (with COMMENT) > > > > > > William Atwood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Such a physically present attacker could learn the identity of > > the Pledge by simply pretending to be a Registrar-Agent, and asking the > > device > for it's identity. > > > > > s/it's/its/ > > > > fixed. > > > > >> An active on-path attacker can not replace the signed objects that > > the > > >> Pledge and Registrar-Agent exchange. > > > > > "can not" is ambiguous. It can mean "it is impossible for the > > attacker to > > > replace the signed objects", or it can mean "it is possible for the > > attacker > > > to 'not replace' (i.e., leave as-is) the signed objects". > > > > > If the first meaning is what you intend, then you could s/can > > not/cannot/, > > > but you should probably reword as "It is impossible for an active > > on-path > > > attacker to replace the signed objects that the Pledge and > > Registrar-Agent > > > exchange." If the second meaning is what you intend, then I suggest > > > rewriting to express what is actually true. > > > > I replaced the sentence as you suggest, and I extended to explain: > > > > > Also, it would be good to add a sentence explaining why (in either > > case). > > > > Now in > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgith > > ub.com%2Fanima-wg%2Fanima-brski- > prm%2Fpull%2F151&data=05%7C02%7Csteffe > > > n.fries%40siemens.com%7Ca85987d3fe8f4f29d5fd08dd9ce8a02d%7C38ae3bcd95 > 7 > > > 94fd4addab42e1495d55a%7C1%7C0%7C638839245109691106%7CUnknown%7C > TWFpbGZ > > > sb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIk > FOI > > > joiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TmRdkSJ5bhrcZRk > Xyp270ig > > hhBDLxRxjbioMbPCHN%2BU%3D&reserved=0 > > > > -- > > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
