IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] DTN architecture issues for handling Huge Content Objects

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 07 December 2012 14:59 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 59BA421F8AC5 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 06:59:12 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WP1fcpsGKNSU for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 06:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC01921F8AB4 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 06:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFB0BE5A; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:58:49 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dAUXRRYzRSaa; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:58:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:1021:3b35:9865:ece6] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:1021:3b35:9865:ece6]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01B5BBE58; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:58:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <50C2042A.4010904@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:58:50 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov>
References: <CCE76D11.D807%william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <CCE76D11.D807%william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
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] DTN architecture issues for handling Huge Content Objects
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, 07 Dec 2012 14:59:12 -0000

On 12/07/2012 02:53 PM, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) wrote:
> IMHO, protecting the content is not the responsibility of the Bundle Agent
> but rather the user or application.  Think of email.  Email is encrypted by
> the user, not the IP layer.

S/MIME and PGP do that for email. DKIM adds and verifies signatures
at MTAs, though for different reasons.

But I agree that BSP has some value, is not a panacea, and
ought be re-designed if/when we do a 5050 bis.

S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email