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

Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3214613339A; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:17:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MMxXIw7EOF6S; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [50.253.254.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4511332CE; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E2162169; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id p0buDVjXYpkx; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:17:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C87916216C; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:17:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
Cc: ideas@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <150670160872.14128.2758037992338326085.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171007163002.11c897a0@elandnews.com> <CAG-CQxpnHKtov+pj6YFL0wxnO3YX7mbLUA9uHUkVQbHqE3A1rQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171008102541.11499408@elandnews.com> <CAG-CQxpEb8Lcjy0M5445K4Ob+nQW15WeEooggcxpb=hToB4HZw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171008112206.1100fa88@elandnews.com> <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A87E81@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171009124208.0f3a8ed8@elandnews.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-ietf@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <e3af31d1-8e74-7b14-cd51-e67ddd810c60@htt-consult.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:17:27 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20171009124208.0f3a8ed8@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/r-QMeJYS0K91Kov7VSJSEHaFerg>
Subject: Re: [Ideas] WG Review: IDentity Enabled Networks (ideas)
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
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." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:17:42 -0000


On 10/09/2017 04:08 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Uma,
> At 10:14 AM 09-10-2017, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>> [Uma]: I am not sure what do you mean by "Privacy requirements 
>> redefined".  Today in
>
> I was commenting on the text from the proposed charter.  There are one 
> or more RFCs which discusses about privacy.
>
>> [Uma]: What's  the relevance of the same here.  IDEAS is not seeking 
>> to change any type of LOC information used in ID/LOC protocols... 
>> this is governed by ID/LOC protocol in use. It could be IPv4 or 
>> (mostly) IPv6.
>>                IDEAS doesn't alter or won't come into picture outside 
>> of ID/LOC protocol context.
>
> If the IETF were to decide that it will stop doing IPv4 work except 
> for maintenance, should the working group be allowed to add in support 
> for IPv4?

Unfortunately, a technology that intentionally breaks IPv4 will not get 
deployed.  It needs to give a 'nod' to backwards compatiblity. A part of 
me would really like to come up with the 'killer protocol' that everyone 
needs but just can't EVER be made to work with IPv4, so sorry world, you 
just have to get over it (IPv4).  If you want something to fit into 
factories, you have to work around IPv4.  It will be interesting to see 
how 6TISCH works out there (with 4in6?)...

Bob