IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] verification of manufacturer in BRSKI

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 19 February 2018 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14B0126CD6 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:46:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gu679iBhLY8Q for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61141126C19 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D0720091; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:53:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1633180766; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:46:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Anoop Kumar Pandey <anoop@cdac.in>, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <18734556-d4a9-560f-724c-09287d4e0f20@gmail.com>
References: <003101d3a570$32e4c510$98ae4f30$@cdac.in> <22127.1519000017@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <005b01d3a95e$f0ba5680$d22f0380$@cdac.in> <18734556-d4a9-560f-724c-09287d4e0f20@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:46:21 -0500
Message-ID: <27674.1519069581@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/6IxH85CC0qOq0ptwmQFZ5RLAhIA>
Subject: Re: [Anima] verification of manufacturer in BRSKI
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 19:46:24 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Problem 1: 
    >> Response: " We assume that in a managed network that the JRC *can*
    >> know all the legitimate manufacturers." 

    >> May be!! But practically may not be possible. Manufacturers keep
    >> adding and also getting out of business. Tracking each MI is difficult. 

Also, the MI may be tracked in the NOC: it doesn't have to happen in the
field.  Once a single MI is added, it is probably good.

How can we improve the text to make this clearer?

leaving this here:
    > alert is completely acceptable IMHO. In this case the device might have been
    > installed by a service technician thousands of kilometres away from the NOC,
    > and if that technician did install a device from an unknown source, this
    > is exactly a case where the NOC should be alerted.

    > Brian


-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email