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

Kathleen Moriarty <> Wed, 18 November 2015 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB0C1A21B5; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kCsHLAXBiSGr; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (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;; 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 with SMTP id b137mr218973vke.157.1447871772025; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id w130sm172846vke.10.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:36:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
X-Google-Original-From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 13:36:09 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Ted Lemon <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <> 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?


> Regards
>   Brian