IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB0C1A21B5; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 kCsHLAXBiSGr; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (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 161981A21B4; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vkgy188 with SMTP id y188so1026710vkg.3; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=iZZLCXuKjXhGSxt45gRUp4SVNty4otWypGo5xv16nac=; b=h11PTDs7ui4RKXUqsUK6jAd6rEjkXEnIe0ayG7Vp3dbe/P/AR0dOoKUqn11qypeZxD Kiu2jcksYMxYQEjZ7l5v1ZHGct4cOetDXlE9ApMVQ8bDxkAU/BV40WmAw1tcxl1FHSLA AtOliMlWbUyQ73yaQ5LphgnZTnRaLfsDzFfuloUorj77GGX88rna0347lhNR0oHgKwnr XLHo5wQQNRhteETrZkbA6MNCemYNIJvduOGWOVXQ12WaEMSF8ZB4VXNtMNE4RihY9Mj1 GTZdBg7yVAraQhZXTWAlYgL6hZ9hK9LwiLoEkl8nCZNjH7IpAwAN73Q/TsXOHQw6jcVa Ey3A==
X-Received: by 10.31.153.143 with SMTP id b137mr218973vke.157.1447871772025; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.7.238.154] (mobile-107-107-60-74.mycingular.net. [107.107.60.74]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w130sm172846vke.10.2015.11.18.10.36.11 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <564CB3FE.20503@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:36:09 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <87B7942D-1E63-46AC-92A1-25FBC0142E41@gmail.com>
References: <20151117235034.24927.22561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <87poz7qw2k.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <1447858576159-79d51c78-b96c8c38-55ec1307@fugue.com> <8737w3qozs.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <1447863094928-7e8a26f0-271186df-921ed76e@fugue.com> <564CB3FE.20503@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/TC8UwbkdAOPzJ7KA4s4saj6wULw>
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:36:14 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ted,
> 
>> The bottom line is that I think the reason you have given for not making DTLS MTI is a really bad one.   There is a perfectly good DTLS implementation out there, which is quite easy to use as far as I can tell,
> 
> So I am puzzled. If that is the case, it is not the HNCP implementer who has to
> write any DTLS code (in my book, the word "implement" in a protocol spec means
> "write code"). At most there would need to be a few extra instructions to wrap
> a socket in DTLS, and that code would likely be ifdeffed because it would
> only be used when needed. Which sounds exactly like a SHOULD to me.
> Or maybe "mandatory to be able to switch on." In any case, not part of the
> HNCP protocol itself.

Hmm, I'm reading it the same way as Ted.  Right now, you have a SHOULD use and while I'm okay with that, a MUST implement enables the option for the SHOULD use, but that they are separate.

If there is a strong enough argument against MTI, I'll be okay with that.  I haven't seen it yet.  The SHOULD use can stay to meet some of the arguments stated, but can a MUST implement be added?

Thanks,
Kathleen 

> 
> Regards
>   Brian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email