Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Security Protocol Spec.

Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov> Wed, 25 May 2005 16:12 UTC

Received: from mx1.grc.nasa.gov (mx1.grc.nasa.gov [128.156.11.68]) by webbie.berkeley.intel-research.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4PGCpV30982; Wed, 25 May 2005 09:12:51 -0700
Received: from lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (seraph4.grc.nasa.gov [128.156.10.13]) by mx1.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95CFC232; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:12:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.35]) by lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j4PGCiK9002054; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4PGCibu000581; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov ([127.0.0.1])by localhost (apataki.grc.n asa.gov [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)with ESMTP id 25966-24; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (gr2134391.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.44.123] )by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4PGCg ho000565; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:12:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 501)id B2C2B4FCB9; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:05:37 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <weddy@grc.nasa.gov>
To: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
Cc: dtn-dev@mailman.dtnrg.org, "Susan F. Symington" <susan@mitre.org>, "'Howard Weiss'" <howard.weiss@sparta.com>
Subject: Re: [dtn-security] 00 version of the Bundle Security Protocol Spec.
Message-ID: <20050525160537.GB21920@grc.nasa.gov>
References: <200505241854.j4OIsx724035@smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org> <42944BEF. 7090007@cs.tcd.ie> <20050525152006.GA7633@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=oLBj+sq0vYjzfsbl
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050525152006.GA7633@pisco.cs.berkeley.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
X-imss-version: 2.19
X-imss-result: Passed
X-imss-scores: Clean:0.00000 C:100 M:100 S:100 R:100
X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:2 R:2 (0.0000 0.0000)
Sender: dtn-security-admin@mailman.dtnrg.org
Errors-To: dtn-security-admin@mailman.dtnrg.org
X-BeenThere: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org
X-Reply-To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: DTN Security Discussion <dtn-security.mailman.dtnrg.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.dtnrg.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security>, <mailto:dtn-security-request@mailman.dtnrg.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.dtnrg.org/pipermail/dtn-security/>

On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:20:06AM -0700, Michael Demmer wrote:
> 
> One thing that may be relevant to the security discussion (and to
> dtn-dev in general) is that I think we should use a different SDNV
> format than the ones described in the LTP spec (i.e. neither SDNV-8
> nor SDNV-16).
> 
> Here's my proposal:
>
> ...

I like this idea.  Reading the LTP spec, it struck me as odd (and
slightly ugly) that there were 2 different types of SDNV.  I couldn't
instantly think of any good way to "unify" them though, so I didn't
gripe about it.  Now that there's a proposed alternative, I'll record
my gripe with the dual-format SDNVs.

-Wes 

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~weddy