IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] Question Regarding Custodial Transfer

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 13 July 2012 10:13 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50BC21F8665 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XdgYoIfoNeMy for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.scss.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3D521F86C5 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C43171512; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:14:08 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1342174447; bh=XiSGa2WWpwxR2f DV0uqE2Gs8dOsSf8rOQ9MW6j5Q3oM=; b=BKGVWDQlp+uIqwl1h4Iy2PULQoSn5k BEa/UrQlOIuRwSNpjzEAVgmKYhkLtU+ccZRXKLjFILsN2Z8p+tJ9EkFbbyVEIe2b WGUy2rmJx482jh9YX2BBClkiSpjZ2CwExeIF9FzuOBVb7LlXBq2/7u9dT4tbi+nc jjgFe4o6dxWJwq1XlhKRuovWIAM0s0Kiozv7qWWELsmM278FYNRw6QyreLHl5FRu 5QlzM9a2NdWAZ6j9RtXjYBhSmstbkvccnxNqgsJpyWpUZ/FH9o8kSOH8zSPeXgNl FGx9zfGG3fDTCNQ6qdAw4mgi+IElg6MJZbF8JvQVXgO8jsh3+BTS2GEw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id YdBseMVKkjOz; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:14:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:256d:260a:c650:4b1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:256d:260a:c650:4b1]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CFBB171513; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:14:06 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4FFFF4EF.70107@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:14:07 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Travis <eric.dot.travis@gmail.com>
References: <CAKovV0yaS7cjJ+JdEKs3SNpaX5FCp5-Oiss0aFpWG=R0BaYS1g@mail.gmail.com> <4FFEA38E.3010804@bbn.com> <42CAC1E3-7480-4C39-81C5-1E5504FEC8C5@nasa.gov> <CAKovV0zzvB8NR1TKR96GBvrLWvJBzed8nEvoz_mBaigD-P==2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKovV0zzvB8NR1TKR96GBvrLWvJBzed8nEvoz_mBaigD-P==2A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Question Regarding Custodial Transfer
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:13:36 -0000

On 07/13/2012 05:52 AM, Eric Travis wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> While BSP would be a non-starter (key management issues), including
> something *similar to* a PIB (payload integrity block) wouldn't be
> terrible; My hangup on such approach is that custody transfer can't be
> predicated on the new custodian implementing (and thus validating) the
> optional integrity check block. It would be better than nothing, until
> it wasn't.

There was a draft for that [1] but its not progressed and I don't
know of any implementations. The basic idea is sound, though IMO
without all the argumentative bits of the draft it'd much more
likely to be implemented (and a lot shorter;-)

S.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-checksum

> 
> Oh well...
> 
> 
> Will,
> 
> For my scenario, time-sync would be a non-issue.
> 
> The lifespan of the bundles would be to some ridiculous (14-28 days?)
> value as they need to be considered valid until the problem is
> resolved.  If the potential clock drift isn't insignificant compared
> to such lifespans then the system is utterly doomed.
> 
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> dtn-interest@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email