Security statement needs improving

[chris-little]

Current statement No security considerations have been made for this document needs improving with the addition of a simple statement of the primary use case. @terpstra suggests: Given the intended use case, there is no functionality within this specification to facilitate authenticity, integrity and confidentiality (e.g. signatures or encryption). This can be applied at the transport level using standards that apply there. Use cases involving authenticity, integrity and confidentiality outside of the transport context (e.g. offline devices) are not intended or supported.

[jonblower]

That text looks good to me

[chris-little]

@ghobona Where is the security statement (Section iv) source? No security considerations have been made for this document. Does it come from the Metanorma software?

[chris-little]

@ghobona The daily build has the sections: i. Abstract ii. Keywords iii. Preface iv. Security v. Submitting organisations vi. Submitters vii. Acknowlegements

But the repo source in Clause0 only has:

1. Preface
2. Abstract
3. Submitters
4. Acknowlegements

Should we add explicitly, in the correct order?

1. Keywords
2. Security
3. Submitting organisations

[chris-little]

@jonblower @ghobona PR #120 I have added i the missing sections and the preferred security text.

[chris-little]

PR #120 merged