[dtn] Custody Transfer Draft
Keith Scott <kscott.mitre@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 16:37 UTC
Return-Path: <kscott.mitre@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 4C933129519 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_PASS=-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 3CZF93npNhIK for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x234.google.com (mail-wr0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::234]) (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 73C061294CD for <dtn@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x234.google.com with SMTP id k6so16764167wre.2 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yZzDlfVhxHr6wY4ryaVsqNuGQtf/VCUx/K0m2UDNqCg=; b=scWqdzEI8DuIh4OVKZu9MtW53x42Xq4a4AMum5rGF77Eu4CzW1XDyNESAYdWDTHGJt dIBVM2wzg8g5UzCHYjXmvuCJLwtv3egPKUvoqqa7RFLy6BVoLog1ZnPsLqrleVZ93tQz Aw3YGF3DJZbQodsbw/FaBUpwjF68dwRN1Nr35IU0LtmgxBcKlS83/6DffSK66m8Gvkhn 27DGQWIItszaBFLJXvksnLmpL5AG5FFLHvAzjLNfnWnDC6keZdasZwdpZuOlrlo2xxH/ IwrfbrZaew708akuq/uIsSu+tGmY5Q+JbqV93RvBqqjYhWhpJS/Yxm+CXgPwOr5GFE2x HQrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yZzDlfVhxHr6wY4ryaVsqNuGQtf/VCUx/K0m2UDNqCg=; b=oJexv5g1sPc5a8AqFAhKmdr0XGAHBfsypaWRAQT7wrAchkiZg/mbsUUQ9ii82qyR9A DG/2qAEOJQSNzquxEdAD7jWOkKDVv3dndhaF/0V0Z6VaFuMM8yKgI0BTuJVXHG0FaXQW R2XgK7vsSVOESDlpWNCSayn5wBc6N+iPCX4hP4dFL8bsUr/Y3G5UwvvrXi0jFv8LzwgN ioG4UOcA6GmvbJd9kizBJVyw4qbo3SONnNm9UW2sLAm/ihhbDF2oNUtnXrP0NNouC4n8 YVqavmS44P1hXjJifV7PldPcoBk05jIMTclzJzhDpOQma+i9wtvKvY643JaY+qmWLexg ReGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2RXt99e5p6jAafIhHzDnMqrjoXWPGpqLoGUL/t7uV5GkIHcj0Ygp4budjSl/Gh2nxR3pVaGOr7tI09GA==
X-Received: by 10.223.152.237 with SMTP id w100mr1419912wrb.72.1490805459815; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.236.70 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Scott <kscott.mitre@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:37:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMXgdkQDwUv9xxY=RcONYOyMGnKXw=Uu2AYNtSZs4oTbqxij-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: dtn@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113c3d58dc97a8054be1318f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/a3XT_8L4_Ms7dlF_nmIxXSzAH6k>
Subject: [dtn] Custody Transfer Draft
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:37:43 -0000
To confirm, I'm happy to work a custody transfer draft. A couple of
questions / desires:
1) I WOULD like the current features that support custody to remain in
5050bis (e.g. 'destination is a singleton', the requirement that every node
must be a member of at least one singleton endpoint). Scott and I can work
these out.
2) Are we looking, as with the BPSec document, to normatively reference the
CT document from 5050bis? I suggest yes.
--keith
- [dtn] Custody Transfer Draft Keith Scott