IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu> Mon, 05 August 2019 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>
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 9E43312015B for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 05:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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=jhuapl.edu
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 YRfvNUUU26yT for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 05:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aplegw02.jhuapl.edu (aplegw02.jhuapl.edu [128.244.251.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24086120026 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 05:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (aplegw02.jhuapl.edu [127.0.0.1]) by aplegw02.jhuapl.edu (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x75C3RN7183105 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 08:04:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhuapl.edu; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=JHUAPLDec2018; bh=OtgQdOZtLTkrqjSZDQmgJGIcg16xFRas1p9WtC57nWI=; b=mTeGPGJCPCLuF56pJXxqcBdsHWxo2v7/PpmK8MYMa9oZKXazQ2TUTwHKAUt7ioZU20Qa lyKOVRt7AIcN13D94BNtgvDk6QppBxIVD1TMyY0ZAIUxgIiKk6gEQKP2ApSdSlp9GGwd 3+f1NVZBshAJWOghHsN36TuHBWuS96u8vwkavvRtGaR6I4GQC5Wa66m7wulzoSkw8dmt 9Bl39s2p+orPnLPe6/vQ0hEbvR1uGEa2MdxaXs9idf+pFytTa7ueFxLK4BOJTWbzecTL Rl6TUI+lwslu+ZhdzCZqDWbxhxFENo/bkid768BlViYic+c0dzzaSUtBVkD9aY9O8Hn7 0Q==
Received: from aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu (aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu [128.244.198.5]) by aplegw02.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 2u56fvbtbc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dtn@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 08:04:25 -0400
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFilteredBySendConnector: aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu
Received: from aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu (128.244.198.5) by aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu (128.244.198.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 08:04:25 -0400
Received: from aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([fe80::19f5:dcc5:c696:1a50]) by aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([fe80::19f5:dcc5:c696:1a50%25]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 08:04:25 -0400
From: "Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>
To: "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
Thread-Index: AQHVSfyVmfw0lHETbEi/mBeOrGPLpabsS1oAgAAsdYA=
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:04:24 +0000
Message-ID: <48417e44ffc64ed38720d11dd28dfa09@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
References: <E91F05C3-03B2-48C7-8C06-E2F773C5AA05@antarateknik.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801E6BF593E@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CAKHJuAeYu8vAnfSjdc2TCbp9C1Kap=GOxDvxUPnbPjdn3GmVjQ@mail.gmail.com> <EE2A78428975E541A99B025DABBAEDF951EA1293@DLDEFFMIMP02EXC.intra.dlr.de>
In-Reply-To: <EE2A78428975E541A99B025DABBAEDF951EA1293@DLDEFFMIMP02EXC.intra.dlr.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [128.244.198.168]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_48417e44ffc64ed38720d11dd28dfa09aplex01dom1jhuapledu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-05_06:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/nCcHP0HeDdd_PLNv1_HFhqTmxyc>
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: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:04:30 -0000

+1 SHOULD

---
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 Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 1:25 AM
To: dtn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD

+1 SHOULD

From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Ronny L. Bull
Sent: Samstag, 3. August 2019 15:08
To: Rick Taylor
Cc: Mehmet Adalier; Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B); DTN WG
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD

SHOULD +1
Ronny

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, 7:51 AM Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com<mailto:rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>> wrote:
+1 for SHOULD.

Rick


From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org<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<mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl..nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40jpl..nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Monday, July 29, 2019 at 9:23 PM
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 9:52 AM
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:dtn@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list
dtn@ietf.org<mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email