[dtn] BPv7 node ID and node identity
"Sipos, Brian J." <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu> Fri, 03 December 2021 20:55 UTC
Return-Path: <Brian.Sipos@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 5C9F33A094E for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:55:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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 qNc97ZQrJffm for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aplegw01.jhuapl.edu (aplegw01.jhuapl.edu [128.244.251.168]) (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 9C2E43A0948 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:55:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (aplegw01.jhuapl.edu [127.0.0.1]) by aplegw01.jhuapl.edu (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 1B3KqVf1133414 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:55:23 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhuapl.edu; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=JHUAPLDec2018; bh=SflU3Ja9yal26oyq8eC+s2wyXqH6GgVByf8EfxkD+JA=; b=bPx+PH7bdNR+q5p/S4i83CJpEed7m0fG4GpWYSzncV3R6Mdfo6iWuW5aLWrjngi9bQnf fTh90yfC/hG6jOsAypYodLXvRjarhIvpj2HBm8s/x4WyAxLfJ2c+htrxwFr2H6iEcD2i HsUS7NKgCBaVb7SoS6Of0f7gg+40KYQ25tV0UsbQFzGfrRmsPrdTpDgQUI0NdC5CcscM biDqTQTLLcHpx43z1md3Tza7jdpljC9f5DtFw9B85/umtf5ty2JvgwfCTFPai1lAtp8b HTKTg1s4UbVG2W43RUZZdR3qcumxpFjN27ScoUq75uu9+OFxPLicFklI4HSMgMZn8MUZ SQ==
Received: from aplex20.dom1.jhuapl.edu (aplex20.dom1.jhuapl.edu [10.114.162.5]) by aplegw01.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 3cpmuq9qre-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Dec 2021 15:55:23 -0500
Received: from APLEX21.dom1.jhuapl.edu (10.114.162.6) by APLEX20.dom1.jhuapl.edu (10.114.162.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.922.13; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:55:22 -0500
Received: from APLEX21.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([fe80::3c73:f90:20fa:eda1]) by APLEX21.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([fe80::3c73:f90:20fa:eda1%5]) with mapi id 15.02.0922.013; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 15:55:22 -0500
From: "Sipos, Brian J." <Brian.Sipos@jhuapl.edu>
To: "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: BPv7 node ID and node identity
Thread-Index: AdfoZRH5c7X7tn4bRK2GW0Es9c3IbQ==
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 20:55:22 +0000
Message-ID: <8bff83552a054f32b1895e7917468035@jhuapl.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.162.26]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0275_01D7E85E.2D364460"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFilteredBySendConnector: APLEX20.dom1.jhuapl.edu
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: APLEX20.dom1.jhuapl.edu
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-12-03_10:2021-12-02, 2021-12-03 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/nck12a4U7meUutrZi4mhxmYFgDI>
Subject: [dtn] BPv7 node ID and node identity
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: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 20:55:30 -0000
All, After re-reading some of the to-be-RFC 9171 I realize that I had been making an incorrect assumption for a long time: that the administrative endpoint ID of a node is the same as its node ID. I see now that more technically that EID can be the node ID but doesn't have to be. In that light I have some deeper questions about a node and its node ID: 1. Is it operational practice that the administrative EID is in fact the node ID? Early examples that I read led me to expect this. 2. Is it required that a node has only a single node ID at any point-in-time? In many parts of the document (and other documents and discussions) the phrasing is ". the node ID ." and not ". a node ID ." or similar phrasing. 3. Is it expected or required that a node ID be stable over time for a node? If not, there seem to be operational issues related to how peers can identify a node with a time-varying node ID. This is especially the case with respect to node authentication and how an authority may grant identifier use to a node. These questions are coming up in the context of the "Node ID Validation" document [1] and its assumptions that the answer to all the above questions are "yes." There are definitely parts of that document which are ambiguous or incorrect now that I see it with the perspective that a node ID is not equivalent to the administrative EID. Thanks for any clarification, Brian S. [1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-07.html
- [dtn] BPv7 node ID and node identity Sipos, Brian J.
- Re: [dtn] BPv7 node ID and node identity sburleig.sb
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] RE: BPv7 node ID and node identity Sipos, Brian J.
- Re: [dtn] [EXT] RE: BPv7 node ID and node identity Birrane, Edward J.