Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)

Joel Halpern Direct <> Thu, 05 October 2017 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9078F13450B; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.321
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uNvuTgp_DNOh; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3627133071; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE74846DC89; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1507167657; bh=PnWUxg7gUSRZeoK0HuoihMezRJs3RAJ+jFYwSBdrUmk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nWnHWTla3kFusWPIWY2vevPFyMf38H/8BOTJimo59K/mNd3Q2MF94g5OfT6WLLl+s vacPmQOW3FAEzBi3h2Obm3oMWaLXDm29f7lGBSwB2p6LlblEi9H2bEt+qah/2kxuXk nYfiAnOjbebb2sdzALv82MZR7ze5iiCsQMoze800=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1049A467F1B; Wed, 4 Oct 2017 18:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
Cc: Uma Chunduri <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Joel Halpern Direct <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 21:40:54 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 01:41:34 -0000

Yes, authentication is necessary to modify the entries.  (Whether one 
should be authenticated before reading varies from case to case.)

But authentication does not require a separate identity.  Exactly what 
it requires depends upon how the system is constructed.

Uma was arguing that they need an identity.  I am arguing that such a 
thing is counter-productive.


On 10/4/17 9:37 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:35:38PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Uma,
>>       It simply does not follow that you need an identity in order to be
>> able to update the mapping system.  You do need authentication.
>>        If you use DNS, then mechanissm such as the authentication used
>> with dynamic DNS suffice.
>>        If you use LISP, then the keying associated with the delegation of
>> the identifier works.
>>        If you use MobileIP, then you need the authentication with your
>> home register.
>>       There is no need for any special Identity.
> My reading of the claim was that authentication is needed in order to
> change the actual map itself, which does seem like a true statement,
> in general.  Authentication is not necessarily needed just to consume
> the map.
> -Ben