Re: [dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 20 May 2012 10:59 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 8608321F8547 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 03:59:25 -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 kG+B0SZwBUCR for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 03:59:24 -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 3709721F8546 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 03:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA9617153F; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:59:23 +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=1337511562; bh=lZmjHgP5zQp4IC GOvWq8ZXKpbilhdPAuV7DrgGhhC0U=; b=NaNWPmlEG+U7fGLWtd/2sKJPhBdDPP egFhMzYsXCvLMavtI205qYJwVmB2eISj4sACSGcVIHKYIBMaKerrekEYgFwctG+m VxNDXuGHQ8tU6gnK6xAuuW86CI2++hK1hGJ0Tuap/c8XZC2Ly7lNQ4CPxXSwzVMo C+kW5njcwVyLLRcSaTBeYqApNOQfM/GsePSbQ1G1ln+rLCBUL33KsdaugQ7nyy9h VEt5IN8QAwvMWvnhNywt4nDxEtWFWox90bUKSpgKU8X6P90TF3XxVbIHUPHh+IxY MRiq/GceldE1URGgR65+d8PU4XElIPOw1IHjmtiqjjjRE4aVnrX3/yrw==
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 Z0+UI4MChVZ3; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:59:22 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.3] (unknown [86.42.20.120]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76CF417153E; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:59:22 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4FB8CE8A.9080904@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 11:59:22 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
References: <4FB2B614.1090303@cs.tcd.ie>, <4FB68139.4010005@cs.tcd.ie> <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37341C5B16AE8@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37341C5B16AE8@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?
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: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:59:25 -0000

On 05/20/2012 09:49 AM, L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> 
>> I'd think I'd like to see a rev of the BP that
>> includes the security stuff from day 1 as a
>> MUST implement, 
> 
> No surprises there - the chairs of this group have always been very focused on security

Ah. I so missed that kind of thing;-)

> But many embedded systems don't need, want, or can afford the overheads and complexity of the BP security protocols, so mandating security will make the bundle protocol even less relevant to operational dtns than it is now. 

Sure, there's a discussion to be had there. IMO the BSP stuff
is too complex, but had to be since it was designed after the
fact. I think we could do better.

>> that gets rid of the dictionary
>> in favour of some kind of generic compression
>> (if IPR-free) and that also loses the absolute
>> time requirement. 
> 
> The absolute time requirement has indeed prevented adoption of the BP.
> 
> However, mandating the security protocol may well need absolute time anyway... I imagine that uniquely identifying a bundle (or preventing replay attacks?) becomes less straightforward without timestamps.

Yep. Didn't say all these changes were easy or trivial.

>> I'd also like to see some bits of current
>> work finished (e.g CL RFCs),
> 
> since the TCP convergence layer draft expired in 2008, and 99+% of bundle transfers rely on the Internet (because TCP/IP is widely available and bundling's just built on top) and use the TCP convergence layer, getting that published would seem to be essential.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-tcp-clayer-02
> 
> (Any reliability that the bundle protocol is perceived to have is probably due to its reliance on TCP. Mandating the security protocol forces a degree of reliability, but at a performance cost.)
> 
>> and also progression
>> of the BPQ work we've been doing and on
>> key management.
> 
> Key management and revocation without absolute time could be... interesting.

Revocation with hard-fail hasn't been deployed by most Internet
applications. Could be that in DTNs its just not worth it - might
be better to try distribute new keys at whatever frequency you
could have done CRL-equivalents. But DTN key management is an
area that needs real research, I agree.

S.


> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn