IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F361B29F3 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 AtJhGRMV9HrK for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU004-OMC2S25.hotmail.com (blu004-omc2s25.hotmail.com [65.55.111.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22FF11B2A26 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:07:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU406-EAS199 ([65.55.111.73]) by BLU004-OMC2S25.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22712); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:07:45 -0700
X-TMN: [jRDs9XRMdNr6yn6UZd3UAL/tcE4w0YaYdem4X6tE+xs=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU406-EAS199B2F4AA7BE6984CF30CD693F90@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
References: <05074C92-4D02-48A6-83CC-C85CCB6ACADA@gmail.com> <96EF8E43-7039-4ADC-AB5B-1289EDD6F32C@neustar.biz> <p06240601cffc8c1c66df@[99.111.97.136]> <1C1D0F18-2C06-4152-A686-BE61F9CBB425@neustar.biz> <DAF7D4AB-CF24-4326-B1E8-9DF69675F54D@gmail.com> <CFFD8515.5D705%mlinsner@cisco.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CFFD8515.5D705%mlinsner@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:07:40 -0700
To: "Marc Linsner (mlinsner)" <mlinsner@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2014 01:07:45.0535 (UTC) FILETIME=[ABF1A8F0:01CFAB92]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/vUgezuWOjvV_talD_j0lRcz9WNI
Cc: "ecrit_ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Discussion on draft-winterbottom-ecrit-priv-loc-04
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:07:47 -0000

There are multiple issues with LbyV, though. It isn't just about the VSP (agree that this is probably bogus), or even trustworthiness. Some large ANPs are just not inclined to provide it for business reasons.

> On Jul 29, 2014, at 2:13 PM, "Marc Linsner (mlinsner)" <mlinsner@cisco.com> wrote:

> The problem is the requirements are for the most part fallacious.
> 
> When queried why the VSP can¹t have LbyV if it¹s covered by their EULA, the answer is, in that case they can have LbyV.
> 
> -Marc-
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> James
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Right, it's a query no matter which entity does it, or which protocol
>>>> is used.
>>> Yeah.  That¹s why even though I have a preference for LoST-does-LbyR, I
>>> am not really against HELD-returns-route.
>>> 
>>> Brian
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> Ecrit@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email