Re: [Anima-signaling] SONN constrained instance

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 01 December 2016 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE8A129407 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:33:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xX1YUkFKTk4r for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 733C4129BD1 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p66so88948717pga.2 for <>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:33:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xZ24/9Y0uff6JbfgxIWE5Oy9a2A58lvXPlyg5KIaaXU=; b=SZYBvEYHtNvpLkxDTChrupTmQihHqRdFOTyAb3Ax7MVITtl5ZU5QSYSPQI2YOW7O9T Zed1OY0wewC41om/7I5g0M0hA2izi2Em47CYm3lBTiFbIPIVRGOn0BIxvVHMlkzKk4O1 S1o9m0KbMNKVW1dOx++I+hp5+WECzk+0r/NQu6+V35MCC8fz7XT0fcJq9zlD5OOECzCH S4KoMsvyj12sKevaKLNrSE35Lc0weNOfCERRFRpkn/QPfztFaEMeQRg+HqT7VC2iT1kV Q69GgIOlfYygEt9NbDYeUR87Zhv1NGb1YSdOL6Xa6SdjugSDYck1XunTQmqo8ststxeU DI+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xZ24/9Y0uff6JbfgxIWE5Oy9a2A58lvXPlyg5KIaaXU=; b=LTwth+Bj62YQKIgx49Oy5CZd96CEd34VSK50mpPMxb5hroLRtMqVLo4/p/C/HPHBuN wRT8Yd41LfZ/Wl35WjTxdYI+cU4UpWBiaQ4S6elF631/RtZX5k/WCImt1twprIHf6ePq pJn0XwIVHlbhPdNM27kK3ijpZ3HZH0znFefGDnLb3gPMbrGTYhOUohDPbenxBeVl82pR alrLv7uy5noZZ8jXBtTo7wxzAu138zl+zvDZd6oWZOE5vdTj2f8NDiYlyZY0LkOt3QtT HBVPBGP+98PpPyMl981kKnbe0DvrG3S4q8UkXElGWnidEdKVbKf88/1HowHMvj+FKfqM rIxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00W/BCeNXOlGwER9/v+WFSKhxvUne8Ow9up1K00jgJ1yyTF5CrH56T9fG4T1POd1Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e92mr79405237pld.12.1480559620839; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:33:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id t193sm88040504pgb.4.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:33:40 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Richardson <>, Anima signaling DT <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 15:33:45 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Anima-signaling] SONN constrained instance
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the signaling design team of the ANIMA WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 02:33:43 -0000

On 01/12/2016 13:34, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
>     > 61.  Is the SONN constrained instance really needed?
>     > My personal inclination is to say "yes" to #59, #61 and #62.

(BTW, I meant #60 there.)

>     > We really need Michael R & Toerless to reach an agreement about #61.
> I think that I said we didn't need it.

You did. But Toerless proposed it, so we need his opinion.

> That all we need is to become aware of the neighbours (which insecure DULL
> can do with M_FLOOD), and that all the security is best done by IKEv2.
> (And IKEv2, even if MacSEC is negotiated rather than IPsec)
> The ACP-04 document imagines a protocol that isn't IKEv2 using some
> unspecified encapsulation over (d)TLS transporting IP packets, and negotiated
> using GRASP.  This hardly has any existing specification (one in tsvwg right
> now), and has no hardware support anywhere.  It's not our place in this WG
> to create new security protocols.

Yes, all I would expect to see negotiated over GRASP would be *which* security
mechanism to use; that's what is assumed in

I have no skin in the game though; I'm quite happy with