tulshi
commented
2 years ago Feedback provided:
-
In section 3.3 (Assumptions), there is no mention of any assumption of interoperability between products. A statement such as there is an expectation that products should eventually interoperate regardless of their vendor origin will help
- In section 4.1.2 (ZTA Supporting Components), under ICAM
- The bullet points for authentication and authorization management should be separated out. They are currently under one bullet on line 1703
- There should be an additional bullet point for Continuous Access Evaluation, like similar bullet points under EDR/EPP and Security Analytics
- Section 4.2.1 (Build-Specific Features) describes two builds. There should be a discussion on how individual vendors were chosen to be a part of a certain build. Were there any limitations of interoperability that caused this choice?
- Appendix D.2 (Build Architecture) defines certain flows such as “User Joins the Enterprise” (D.2.2.2) and “Message Flow for a Successful Resource Access Request” (D.2.4), but does not describe how the session management flows defined in the ZTA in Operation section (4.1.3) are achieved.
- Appendix F has the similar issue that it defines the access request flow (F.2.3), but does not address the session management flow defined in the “ZTA in Operation” section (4.1.3)
Review due August 8 link here