Re: [dtn] BPbis consensus status

[Lloyd W <[e-mail]>]

hi Scott,

what do you mean by "verify" here?

A bundle can contain a checksum (section 4.1) and that checksum SHOULD/MUST (imo) be checked before a bundle is forwarded further, to prevent transmitting corruption that would e.g. misdirect a bundle.

Is that "verification"? That affects the interpretation of your statement of Ran's 1f.

Lloyd Wood
[e-mail]

Your quality source for focused bundle checksum concerns for over a decade.

> On 17 Sep 2020, at 05:43, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi.  As best I can work out from the last eight weeks of emails, here is the status of the remaining open questions on the BPbis draft.
> 
> 1.    Should the BPbis specification mandate implementation of the BPSec security extensions?
>    a.    On July 27, Marc Blanchet strongly opposes this mandate.
>    b.    On July 28, Brian Sipos supports the mandate in a limited way: when bundle-level security is needed, that security must be provided by BPSec rather than by some other mechanism.  [This language now appears in section 9 of version 26 of the BPbis Internet Draft.]
>    c.    On July 28, Ronny Bull agrees with Brian.
>    d.    On July 28, Mehmet Adalier agrees with Brian.
>    e.    On July 28, Ed Birrane agrees with Brian.
>    f.    On July 29, Ran Atkinson supports the mandate in a more expansive way: implementation of BPSec is mandatory for any Bundle Protocol Agent that sources, verifies, and/or accepts a bundle.  A BPA that only forwards bundles (without verifying them) need not implement BPSec.
>    g.    On July 29, Rick Taylor agrees with Ran.
>    h.    On July 29, Ed Birrane agrees with Ran.
>    i.    On July 29, Ronny Bull agrees with Ran.
>    j.    On August 3, Adam Wiethuechter agrees with Brian.
>    k.    On September 2, Magnus Westerlund supports the mandate without limitation.
> 
> 2.    Is the registration policy for Bundle and Block Processing Control flags in sections 10.3 and 10.4 of BPbis version 26 satisfactory?
>    a.    To date, no comments from the Working Group.
> 
> 3.    Does the language in section 5.4 Step 2 of BPbis version 26 satisfactorily address the question of mandating implementation of TCPCL in the BPbis specification?
>    a.    To date, no comments from the Working Group.
> 
> 4.    Does the language in section 4.2.2 and 5.5 of BPbis version 26 satisfactorily address the question of authorizing Bundle Protocol Agents to override the bundle lifetimes asserted by BP applications?
>    a.    To date, no comments from the Working Group.
> 
> 5.    Does the language in section 4.1.5.1.1 of BPbis version 26 satisfactorily address the question of discerning whether or not a given dtn-scheme endpoint ID identifies a singleton endpoint?
>    a.    To date, no comments from the Working Group.
> 
> 6.    Does the language in section 10.6 of BPbis version 26 satisfactorily address the question of limiting the permitted number of different BP URI scheme type codes?
>    a.    To date, no comments from the Working Group.
> 
> 7.    In version 26 of the BPbis specification, all BP time values (e.g., bundle creation time, lifetime, bundle age) are denominated in milliseconds rather than in seconds or microseconds.  Is this satisfactory?
>    a.    On July 28, Carsten Bormann notes that the CBOR representation of time values could utilize tags to reduce transmission bandwidth consumption.
>    b.    On July 29, Jeremy Mayer endorses Carsten's idea: times may be denominated in seconds (tag 1) or at other granularity (tag 1001).
>    c.    On July 29, Ed Birrane warns that this concept introduces the possibility of time values changing in transit, violating the immutability of primary blocks.
>    d.    On July 29, Rick Taylor, Scott Burleigh, Ed Birrane, and Ran Atkinson discuss the question of what is really meant by the immutability of the primary block: semantic immutability or syntactic immutability?
>    e.    On August 3, Adam Wiethuechter agrees with Ran that both semantic immutability and syntactic immutability are required.  He believes that denominating all DTN times in milliseconds is a good resolution.
>    f.    On August 4, Lloyd Wood explains immutability.
> 
> 8.    Does the language in section 4.3 of BPbis version 26 satisfactorily address the question of whether implementation of all extension blocks defined in the BPbis specification is mandatory or conditional?
>    a.    To date, no comments from the Working Group.
> 
> Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn