[dtn-security] Bundle Security Protocol: one more item

"Symington, Susan F." <susan@mitre.org> Thu, 16 November 2006 21:12 UTC

Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (smtpproxy1.mitre.org [192.160.51.76]) by webbie.berkeley.intel-research.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id kAGLCbY08563 for <dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:12:37 -0800
Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id kAGLCaHe026940 for <dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:12:36 -0500
Received: from smtp-bedford.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B55BF7B for <dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:12:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG (imcfe1.mitre.org [129.83.29.3]) by smtp-bedford.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kAGLCarO026920; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:12:36 -0500
Received: from IMCSRV4.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.161]) by IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:12:35 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C709C3.EFFC30D7"
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:12:34 -0500
Message-ID: <8E507634779E22488719233DB3DF9FF0012295D9@IMCSRV4.MITRE.ORG>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Bundle Security Protocol: one more item
Thread-Index: AccJw++LfVqMzDqHSYWznSa+Z0GUxw==
From: "Symington, Susan F." <susan@mitre.org>
To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "Peter Lovell" <peter.lovell@sparta.com>, "Howard Weiss" <howard.weiss@sparta.com>
Cc: <dtn-security@mailman.dtnrg.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2006 21:12:35.0753 (UTC) FILETIME=[F042C990:01C709C3]
Subject: [dtn-security] Bundle Security Protocol: one more item
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
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/>

Security pundits:
 
One more item that I would like to address in the next revision of the
Bundle Security Protocol:
 
Currently, section 3.7 of the Bundle Protocol says the following:
 
"Whenever a bundle is forwarded that contains one or more extension 
   blocks that could not be processed, the "Block was forwarded without

   being processed" flag must be set to 1 within the block processing 
   flags of each such block.  For each block flagged in this way, the 
   flag may optionally be cleared (i.e., set to zero) by another node 
   that subsequently receives the bundle and is able to process that 
   block; the specifications defining the various extension blocks are 
   expected to define the circumstances under which this flag may be 
   cleared, if any. "
 
 
This means that in the Bundle Security Protocol we need to define the
circumstances under
which the "Block was forwarded without being processed" flag may be
cleared, if any.
 
Anyone care to take a stab at this?
 
-susan
 
*****************************************************************
Susan Symington
The MITRE Corporation
susan@mitre.org
703-983-7209 (voice)
703-983-7142 (fax)
******************************************************************