IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] [EXT] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-02

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Fri, 14 May 2021 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
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 5214F3A3D9E for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 May 2021 12:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 I4wM-C0sFCLE for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 May 2021 12:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (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 D9B903A3BBB for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 May 2021 12:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id n40so13321370ioz.4 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 May 2021 12:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=69qZQgibI969de78LhmkttymGQtkZoRzBefp7aC7Bg4=; b=e0rjLJvFfihKjOLIl79lg7Cfja9IB2lUWwnhIf8jxkknj4/PuLDuDVqH/JEXrThca6 tKlh7rZOaZbC2WrTsti0gAfTnbWIsYxtFbLXbL7Zf9sd7tyew9AuK0lppjih8pSqMbYY 0mZT7PbEnbyZj4MX7VAGygl4EB35lrL084JrOGZ9KULD+JoXzAbgMOhQvGRFHq9I4S7T SAb0hgylpVZ7PEbFH9CKzfEmbITnidmpG1H1kLjNLhXYnl52w6u6qreQUkYDasgtQpBS Kx8XlqmVclRmcYXWpBiAYeWtfZmDPtnwwvUpd1k1k6pqwt88Cr2mrPp9g6lAsIiiNTyh TBxw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=69qZQgibI969de78LhmkttymGQtkZoRzBefp7aC7Bg4=; b=DcZ9BAgHAtuqgX1SSnjRZSjaLfsU/GCXM2UbqOMKhWRh538w+Fx2HRmbrqDNLy+H/O u+qlogCqjR8+o4PE9tOS6LcuyJXCrhPr9EmBAcwNAaV8bNUlua5aIZxCrKniI1IhfWb1 OaISh7TdwRHM0a2psSWyRkcbY2OgObqqgFaeaawxmn9hhAY8yC2IkVTBWd45NYlKcH8o jlw0gUF8VbDnc3OBEkD2tHlS3WYvnAt1UocSF4+ioOphsRZYUlydFokvwN2ybeK37+Nv rZ8nu1ocLUKb6OFxQFy54y7fIUBDiJiQ/xlC3uV0iQsVqxRQFkpAT2OZ4WvuQwy17u6L m9Tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53054wdhg2zulExxkZnPJxhKk/aQK93LIaEOZSLY5kgQfq8qlCRh uPDUh3crEZEtlV1AQlthEzLOk1VjPGRFvddYvIc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWBsguxpuQwKP5C7wfn0akUD9PfIsqVYXuCszEnYAAhuRQk+GDwkVDHxiQGvZvowEoKsH1sEZGFkC+hw0fuNg=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:a619:: with SMTP id q25mr32162848ioi.95.1621020824349; Fri, 14 May 2021 12:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM4esxRUTi+iLki95x6gRzaN7KfXr72bicKRrLxf=3_No8-PSQ@mail.gmail.com> <8c32964152f0472e9b21908802d73187@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu> <B923F182-768A-4FD1-92C7-6D3B5F56D016@gmail.com> <CAM4esxTbODw4DpG2df_C55g+n4TVBrLxZm8AcCNwKhsGfzkA4w@mail.gmail.com> <c724609751644632925ae1e26761c396@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
In-Reply-To: <c724609751644632925ae1e26761c396@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 12:33:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSVNQWb4C2Qgtg8frWUxau3w3y5Fr1jN=StJ-6xRPAYtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>
Cc: "R. Atkinson" <rja.lists@gmail.com>, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>, DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068b21e05c24f5295"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/NrHok_eP9iQD8QV0R9lNLAmLQUg>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXT] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-02
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, 14 May 2021 19:33:51 -0000

I believe that fully captures Zahed's review, yes.

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 12:23 PM Birrane, Edward J. <
Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu> wrote:

> Ran,
>
>
>
>   I’m always open to adding explanatory material here – and it’s good to
> get feedback on what things require that kind of clarification.
>
>
>
> Martin,
>
>
>
>   I am, personally, not opposed to a registry. As you said, it is a little
> bit of text.  Happy to add it based on your thoughts regarding future
> interop.
>
>
>
>   I will update the -06 draft as discussed so far in this thread.  I think
> the upcoming -07 would resolve AD comments so far. Is that correct?
>
>
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> ---
> Edward J. Birrane, III, Ph.D.
>
> Embedded Applications Group Supervisor
>
> Space Exploration Sector
>
> Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
> (W) 443-778-7423 / (F) 443-228-3839
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Martin Duke
> *Sent:* Friday, May 14, 2021 3:02 PM
> *To:* R. Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>; DTN WG <
> dtn@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [dtn] [EXT] Re: AD review of
> draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-02
>
>
>
> *APL external email warning: *Verify sender dtn-bounces@ietf.org before
> clicking links or attachments
>
>
>
> OK, so there's a slight revision of (6.1), possibly Ran's other editorial
> comments, and we have to resolve this registry issue.
>
>
>
> IMO interoperability problems are an issue for whomever writes the
> extension, not for you. For a flag that changes the format, this would have
> to be negotiated. For something that doesn't, it might just provide
> additional information or trigger some other behavior that doesn't break
> the whole decrypt operation. I am not going to lie down in the road on this
> registry issue (though Zahed might?) but it's a pretty small bit of text
> and one decision on what RFC 8126 policy to use.
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email