IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [arch-d] Treating "private" address ranges specially

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Thu, 01 April 2021 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704073A1A44 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 XX4WbQ1dgHUU for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43D03A1A41 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C90D39151; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Dq9Tbx-d6P8k; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB12239149; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD968EE; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:15:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20210331221054.GG8957@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <4329d51a-d5ba-45b3-9fb0-6795dc6fccd3@www.fastmail.com> <CAMGpriWA4B8AThNKBOHo-bfAdQ2s5iYv8rBOB7X8UVc5GsqENA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriUJkWYPyw7=oAj_GnGu2J14T3=VZYNWPZtAs870P=x0sg@mail.gmail.com> <a68636c2-5df0-46eb-8147-79ec6a992f8a@www.fastmail.com> <CAMGpriU_L8HbLFX_mMBtBXxy=XOc5BAnYgVR9R8TQO=DPvRD_g@mail.gmail.com> <F59E2FC3-19CE-4D14-9F1C-9F7125D89455@mnot.net> <CAMGpriVJCsird15oBfT=gSDTr59_yf9TkLmOSO7a9DGX0VRjOg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMB2iOA-QaCidJHVN=qqZ8TtPXV=xyfuKh+i44VzZLWG3w@mail.gmail.com> <0cfae1b5-378d-1b28-9a60-89ef15cd793a@gmail.com> <20210331221054.GG8957@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <17555.1617293728.1@localhost>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 12:15:28 -0400
Message-ID: <17556.1617293728@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/kk3neTko5tvlnalW5MXf3z7NK_M>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Treating "private" address ranges specially
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 16:15:36 -0000

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
    > c) There is actually (IMHO) a good discussion that should be had abouut
    > how browser security could
    > better support the needs of limited domains (rfc8799), but i fear the mayority of contributors
    > to w3c / browser security in ietf still think everything required is just what fits the global
    > Internet web-pki and Internet cloud services centric browser security
    > architecture we have today.

There is a SIG of IOTSecurityFoundation called manysecured, which is
attempting to have this conversation.

   https://manysecured.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email