[dtn] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Fri, 26 July 2019 16:52 UTC
Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE1B120368 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NjtLJCcYywEX for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A789120376 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id e20so75743951iob.9 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=kd9V2jkCRGe8p7DV0jwf22bgTBIY21ejmjoHYyugQB0=; b=BtVE+47rAjlERD/i2S7M4Xcq3CG5KH5hxpCNbtsD5Q0BKlkYB8ewYRBSlVCRDihIDn R6C+b4abF5HxkDNSS5kP4Ia9sezhECEudoKMGzgJDN8FMAhdZyk5/tZYVEgglwvwIxvl lMe88Qy7b/zo1o6OcTs6fbKqCb5gr0v/T4KuZv94l+mDQ1Hs50PT5H5wz2KGt1H4u6F2 xrl7xbXZuaKYjbE4ItZxdWDWVQk0z/lTHgUID1QlZcI2q/8abhian+LYIlOin+0rKU4s iKhqjgl2BaZ5w8O/OYpz2TyG7rkxjj3HHPxFDlnYz+stV6wzo+STD/xsg9FH3i5afgWN 8DZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=kd9V2jkCRGe8p7DV0jwf22bgTBIY21ejmjoHYyugQB0=; b=PGwU9vDOoGgRkLEgmO/eOw8q5ZY5u6vXqXLm2fiVcXbp829kP0TqdhCvLqvyN4sjvb I2iMEMjazbtCf80Qld0PNy5sLtQ/4165FlMR6UT8F9xsROJ/pLkP79FzEYHr0idO6Gwf pbKz9Fr1wTLlri5CW34lA3taNGueljT4GdMhqL5D2CITjABnGHN3pTjSRAfGg6B0WZq+ +u5bV43gBzTG1araKNDCvLwfdDF0J/YDo8e9QSE5LZ+5wZUkduPl6gSCVfbWtJDc+QZD sBlUOPN81GiClwmwPUrX6Zx6RaDmj41SdkmDnHB/YpwCaEvHFFceRsERokVzd1HTtTSH lxog==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX0HZBVRdSHFdgXFr5Qa5BhOwMUT7Isuh370rmoPWUdczXwd0N1 Zu/1NTcMeiTYSzm+2uG82mb8FdqcLOECug==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyUtbPYfLPMmRWzEZAfaoaoBrRGvYNF56hZRf/O1wTVytsg2j4e8oZe/zrUXg7qhiKMgYh23A==
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:881a:: with SMTP id l26mr64167231ioj.185.1564159934441; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.194] ([75.98.19.132]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c81sm82488856iof.28.2019.07.26.09.52.07 for <dtn@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 12:51:30 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <9C3ABB57-3470-4354-8B84-6D1E649312FF@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_98D8C273-9F9B-4D59-8E54-ECFB1E7F889E_="
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/MuAE7Xo1Nl5fHK_BcXkTP59RkBk>
Subject: [dtn] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:52:25 -0000
Hello, from our AD review of BPBis, there was a question on whether make BPSEC a MUST or SHOULD implement: i.e. a conformant BPbis implementation MAY/SHOULD/MUST also implement BPsec. The concensus in the room was for a SHOULD. This email is to confirm the concensus. Please state your position by replying to the list. If you agree with SHOULD, please also reply so that chairs can see the support of each options. ===== in BPbis, BPSEC MAY/SHOULD/MUST be implemented? (expected answer: MAY, SHOULD or MUST) Rationale for your answer? ==== Regards, Marc, co-chair
- [dtn] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Marc Blanchet
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Mehmet Adalier
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Rick Taylor
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Dr. Ronny L. Bull
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Jeremy.Mayer
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Birrane, Edward J.