Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
<Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de> Mon, 05 August 2019 05:25 UTC
Return-Path: <Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de>
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 BF963120018 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 22:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 2P96GBRmcpOJ for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 22:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailin.dlr.de (mailin.dlr.de [194.94.201.12]) (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 338261200F7 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Aug 2019 22:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
IronPort-SDR: Uz5rSf80lpyz22EtmLnP/gJ9Sx3vJ9EwXSon5AaC7tQXGkFMJlp8QI87RQwUCDDXZMNzk+vplW lGT/A8SLWSdw==
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23: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
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2GwAABbvEdd/wuKuApmHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBVgQBAQsBgRWBWxSBLgqEFJFQmRuBZwkBAQEBAQEBAQEgAQoMAQEChD0CF4JxNwYOAQMBAQUBAQEBBgEBAoYHDII6IhxNawEBAQEBASMCRCwBAQEBAwEBIQpBGwIBCBEDAQEBCx0DAgICJQsUCQgCBBMIgxuBHXyqc4EyijgGgTQBhHGJB4ERRoJMPoJhAQECgSwBEgEhFggWglUygiYEjwWcGwcCgTmVFgeCL4csg2aKaKdFgQpxcU+CbItHhT9yAQEBi3aBIoEhAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.64,348,1559512800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="20767800"
From: Jeremy.Mayer@dlr.de
To: dtn@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD
Thread-Index: AQHVSfyZHeSFigEVrE2zatCJ17r6MKbsCDUg
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 05:25:04 +0000
Message-ID: <EE2A78428975E541A99B025DABBAEDF951EA1293@DLDEFFMIMP02EXC.intra.dlr.de>
References: <E91F05C3-03B2-48C7-8C06-E2F773C5AA05@antarateknik.com> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801E6BF593E@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <CAKHJuAeYu8vAnfSjdc2TCbp9C1Kap=GOxDvxUPnbPjdn3GmVjQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHJuAeYu8vAnfSjdc2TCbp9C1Kap=GOxDvxUPnbPjdn3GmVjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-tm-snts-smtp: ED855560B454D7109FD43275C695DB2130AC24650D8D75870DA57BCC8A45441A2000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EE2A78428975E541A99B025DABBAEDF951EA1293DLDEFFMIMP02EXC_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/wO_EaEBngw-yjs8etQSGV49Ph_g>
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 05:25:13 -0000
+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
- [dtn] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Marc Blanchet
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Mehmet Adalier
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Rick Taylor
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Dr. Ronny L. Bull
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Jeremy.Mayer
- Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] bpbis: BPSEC MUST or SHOULD Birrane, Edward J.