While line 640 mentiones security, privacy, and reliability the section speaks of security at the communication layer only. ISO's need comply with NERC CIP Information Protection guidelines that should be described in the Information Model (see IRC Information Model and XML Schemas) to classify information, not only protect it.
Field | Original Value | New Value |
---|---|---|
Assignee | William Cox [ william.cox ] | Toby Considine [ toby.considine ] |
Resolution | Include an optional attribute (cardinality [0..1]) in each message. The definition will mirror the IRC proposal, i.e., three topcs, and high medium or low for each. | |
Status | New [ 10000 ] | Open [ 1 ] |
Fix Version/s | wd19 [ 10125 ] | |
Resolution | Fixed [ 1 ] | |
Status | Open [ 1 ] | Resolved [ 5 ] |
Assignee | Toby Considine [ toby.considine ] | William Cox [ william.cox ] |
Resolution | Include an optional attribute (cardinality [0..1]) in each message. The definition will mirror the IRC proposal, i.e., three topcs, and high medium or low for each. |
Define an attribute (cardinality [0..1]). The definition will mirror the IRC proposal, i.e., three topcs, and high medium or low for each. The CSWG strongly recommends using this as a deployment descriptor, rather than something included in each message. The class model should address how a deployment descriptor is related to a message type or types. |
Proposal |
Define an attribute (cardinality [0..1]). The definition will mirror the IRC proposal, i.e., three topcs, and high medium or low for each. The CSWG strongly recommends using this as a deployment descriptor, rather than something included in each message. The class model should address how a deployment descriptor is related to a message type or types. |
|
Resolution |
Define an attribute (cardinality [0..1]). The definition will mirror the IRC proposal, i.e., three topcs, and high medium or low for each. The CSWG strongly recommends using this as a deployment descriptor, rather than something included in each message. The class model should address how a deployment descriptor is related to a message type or types. |
Security risk to add to messages (rather than transport and interaction) Close, no change |
Issue Type | Bug [ 1 ] | Improvement [ 4 ] |
Status | Resolved [ 5 ] | Applied [ 10002 ] |
Status | Applied [ 10002 ] | Closed [ 6 ] |
The information structure correctly describes the information classification for NERC CIP, but including the "value" of the message in the message seems to increase risk by flagging more valuable messages. (From discussion with CSWG members)
This would be a useful "deployment descriptor", rather than a message component.
This seems to be relevant information in deciding what security/reliability to compose for specific types of interactions.