Re: [babel] rfc6126bis security implementation requirements

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Fri, 16 November 2018 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9228E127598 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:40:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 1yeUFXFr2nd7 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:40:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [IPv6:2001:470:dc45:1000::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6458F127332 for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:40:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1542397247; bh=2mZa/q5ePIct1KR6Yk6VVgbtNO1KvBZNaKgFt7A/VZ0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=p1QwFKJjgGU3W0I7v+lbGv8AvJMHKMl/P/MwkNfTXp0UC6gfMXpG9UaC7lRj8oCkT wztk2ZlLlOj7QNqrztgMihXjhq6E76mZzfHHrbtniS/j6i1K9n5JWUhbYNWedTuABP j+y1J21nblVy7jjwaXgUTlHF510XANf4QGngvTOj0jWx8HAMBL5j5u17YFR5zlegXD 2th3+uZzCylSq1zNl9K21SahsEsrO/tIE1SUd/D2tLKcUPyEXtLpx3JqAYv0E3YC49 i/tyUVNoBFqHPfNLRh0XDaab/+HG+qcRQaqnCrUKp/Ie6ooKLFQG97utI49GacnF0f 2YDruHRAEQZhw==
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87tvkhw47d.wl-jch@irif.fr>
References: <CAF4+nEHaYMX_iLvE5teUvk97ZmO03oS1LRaS1A7BiNaLMEwcWw@mail.gmail.com> <87o9axrvrm.wl-jch@irif.fr> <CAF4+nEH+K3hGfrTQTR+5kH_FCtJok-qoZ_J3e9_zeWCiWjWQ=g@mail.gmail.com> <87in14dn1b.fsf@toke.dk> <87tvkhw47d.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:29:59 -0800
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <877ehcu8g8.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/6IHf-YMai1n2aw7VPDOBYVsXexU>
Subject: Re: [babel] rfc6126bis security implementation requirements
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:40:55 -0000

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:

>>> A recommendation can be pretty weak depending on what you say about
>>> when it might not be applicable. Let's see if anyone else has comments
>>> on this.
>
>> Well for my part, I read "recommend both" as "great, I can continue to
>> not implement DTLS". :)
>
> I take this to mean that you agree with me in principle...

Yup.

>> Don't have any strong opinion on the wording, though...
>
> ...but think I'm being overly pedantic.  (You probably have a stronger
> expression in mind.)

I'm fine with the text in -07.

-Toke