IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> Sat, 03 August 2019 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.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 0014912017D for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 04:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 wwPO0MvhEbqX for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 04:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com [188.94.42.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D376D1200C5 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 04:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::48e4:acbb:6065:8168]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::48e4:acbb:6065:8168%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:51:01 +0100
From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: Mehmet Adalier <madalier@antarateknik.com>, "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>, DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
Thread-Index: AQHVSO6wMrgMfBltm0Ws4i+Ce3IRwKbpUVYg
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 11:50:59 +0000
Message-ID: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801E6BF593E@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
References: <E91F05C3-03B2-48C7-8C06-E2F773C5AA05@antarateknik.com>
In-Reply-To: <E91F05C3-03B2-48C7-8C06-E2F773C5AA05@antarateknik.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2a02:1648:4000:120:dd4a:a303:cf70:9790]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801E6BF593Etssserver1hom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/Z3rSy6G5OOtHSM7v7tqTRE6sJ7A>
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 11:51:07 -0000

+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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email