Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update Network layer protection guidance in CAEP Interoperability Profile #213

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

thomasdarimont
Copy link

@thomasdarimont thomasdarimont commented Oct 8, 2024

We now recommend to follow RFC9325 instead of the obsolete RFC7525.

Fixes #212

@thomasdarimont thomasdarimont requested a review from a team as a code owner October 8, 2024 15:58
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ The following requirements are common across all use-cases defined in this docum

## Network layer protection
* The SSF transmitter MUST offer TLS protected endpoints and MUST establish connections to other servers using TLS. TLS connections MUST be set up to use TLS version 1.2 or later.
* When using TLS 1.2, follow the recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security in [RFC7525]{{RFC7525}}.
* When using TLS 1.2 or later, follow the recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security in [RFC9325]{{RFC9325}}.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As only 1.2 or later can be used, probably don't need that qualifier, I'd suggest:

Suggested change
* When using TLS 1.2 or later, follow the recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security in [RFC9325]{{RFC9325}}.
* The SSF transmitter MUST follow the recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security in [RFC9325]{{RFC9325}}.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I adapted the change. Doesn't the same apply for the receiver?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oh good point! I guess it should have an 'and receiver'?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Outdated Network layer protection guidance in CAEP Interoperability Profile 1.0
2 participants