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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 1A0141B305E for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:13:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 7rQJ99p00Rj4 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fugue.com (mail-2.fugue.com [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9C71B3091 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:13:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14478848143130.7932846830226481"
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
To: homenet@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <564CB3FE.20503@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>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 22:13:34 +0000
Message-Id: <1447884814614-715e9a9c-85094a5f-bf0e482e@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/yX6mg1yV4xbVZ0_C7F_aHUD-PfI>
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 22:13:49 -0000

Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 12:23 PM Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 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.

That's why I said MTI, not MTU!   But MTI means not #ifdef.


--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon@fugue.com