Re: [karp] Handling of LDP hello packets and the crypto table

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 17 September 2013 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DCE21F860A for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Aj7-kcxYUvAJ for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBEE211E848E for <karp@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE43D202F5; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pIZXLTqhcyvj; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-136-31-107.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.136.31.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 5C5CA87FA2; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:02:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <tsl61u9a9o1.fsf@mit.edu> <522EEACC.6030707@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:02:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <522EEACC.6030707@joelhalpern.com> (Joel M. Halpern's message of "Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:47:56 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslbo3rfq50.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, karp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [karp] Handling of LDP hello packets and the crypto table
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:04:07 -0000

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel M Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> writes:


    Joel> The one concern I have about using a single entry and a
    Joel> registry describing both sides is whether there will be many
    Joel> different combinations that folks have a reason (good, bad, or
    Joel> otherwise) to use. As long as the number of combinations is
    Joel> small, this compound entry seems tractable.


Agreed.

I tend to give configuration and operation complexity very heavy weight
because I want our solutions to be easy enough to deploy that they are
actually deployed.
So, I strongly prefer the single entry approach if the number of
combinations is small.