IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD

"Dr. Ronny L. Bull" <ronnybull@gmail.com> Sat, 03 August 2019 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ronnybull@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 4B2531201E2 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 06:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 XCU7toOrSZdl for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 06:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (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 1D6231201C9 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 06:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2e.google.com with SMTP id u3so53088013vsh.6 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 06:08:39 -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=u0caxx4YXf3iPqkZUfl34JrNbkpXc9lZQU0ZAxU6zuk=; b=vOvX44/APlDFm6O841ty2nH5QfR19N59dPyV6fFTTgt8d+igSf3fOY0oJcscvDVb9j SLjB0wU5Re8REtc9o0bMMg31zyoEagO4HwfO9lRqXUxWWzm8zRDl0h61umItx2uAofPP 6LEScPXRQiaOh9EeL4qytpO3LyzKqQlXoA03QJHMYWJS3mwkxZj9H+S9ITqf3LbEms2C tY1hvoDeaQ7Ds2p7rGqNjhMq0KMb5/3Ziem9Q/w5Fow+UryZHMJDeBQFe7+ObPvH5PkI fm/2dat6PXSdMLZznIDOA3ccfuHspTWXyJa38lXYZLZkDG2kCAF3Lc7vQzKut4C+ar14 XW6Q==
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=u0caxx4YXf3iPqkZUfl34JrNbkpXc9lZQU0ZAxU6zuk=; b=fne0bf91DIGFSYdmsdwc33OaHIjkx/cAPcfK87VEg4U1+QMlIwmC2waKSFv5S5KmED /FBbXCiDKgPOXUZrxL2lQgVOjC/yhfNdMyO9VC5N9snvv3KoXzdI/yhU/cQarj9+GuST JaSMP6H8Rn2B0cS5paigSZssfQ5/BSjPON9iU6gNGzkRuY/XMyCmQHkpolwCrBchhHhx p+0fNHm/0S/9vGBtOJLrr8uw10/2UNxBultUaEmiqkliBJr3Wzt7bjZrzPfolSyku7xl UctTXIEcxORIVEYNDK+FyP38Niec38/iOmKn/XHZEPPwikVf6hsuEQ/0857xx9ddRM8l 1tZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVIV8OZ+vxkbY0G9jITDHfKLNIW4V0qoUTGWrJGFtaFQqB9SIpw iBPNFOMirJsWvXu5C7nb8VfWkpswV1hOhIAQB6k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqykSBjddJycwC23F3nCHAgqaAHrFQYA3lHdL+i8fHjmWevDq057vdY1g+YOb1ep/JzkRVeg3nxbSJKu6BUbOw4=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:7dd8:: with SMTP id y207mr93194316vsc.67.1564837717975; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 06:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E91F05C3-03B2-48C7-8C06-E2F773C5AA05@antarateknik.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801E6BF593E@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801E6BF593E@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
From: "Dr. Ronny L. Bull" <ronnybull@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 09:08:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKHJuAeYu8vAnfSjdc2TCbp9C1Kap=GOxDvxUPnbPjdn3GmVjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Cc: Mehmet Adalier <madalier@antarateknik.com>, "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>, DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fa8d6058f362ced"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/YgeG_pRmjeXPubp5ydtJ_bajIbY>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] 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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 13:08:41 -0000

SHOULD +1

Ronny

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, 7:51 AM Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
wrote:

> +1 for SHOULD.
>
>
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Mehmet Adalier
> *Sent:* 02 August 2019 05:57
> *To:* Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B); DTN WG
> *Subject:* Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
>
>
>
> +1 for SHOULD.
>
> making it a MUST is a bit excessive and MAY is to soft.
>
>
>
> mehmet
>
>
>
> *From: *dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Burleigh, Scott C (US
> 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl..nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Monday, July 29, 2019 at 9:23 PM
> *To: *DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
>
>
>
> Another point on which I don’t have a strong opinion, but my vote would be
> for SHOULD implement.  In real operation I think bpsec (at least a BIB on
> the primary block) would be mandatory in practice, but some closed
> environments bpsec might be unnecessary; when this is the case, requiring
> an implementation seems excessive.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> *From:* dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Marc Blanchet
> *Sent:* Friday, July 26, 2019 9:52 AM
> *To:* DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [dtn] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
>
>
>
> 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 mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email