IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review

"Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: lurk@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lurk@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1578212D0CF for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 gLHcIfrtFObp for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (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 1F67B12D768 for <lurk@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 686564ED5623D; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:12:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u68FD0i8019931 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:13:01 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u68FD0QZ012537 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:13:00 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA08.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.4.136]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:13:00 +0200
From: "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>, "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>, LURK BoF <lurk@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review
Thread-Index: AQHR2HgSg0tTsN/a/0GtEc0s5rOi76AOHE2AgABIygCAAC+cAA==
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:13:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D3A5796B.6C1FB%thomas.fossati@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <577E965F.6060508@gmail.com> <D3A5155E.6C012%thomas.fossati@alcatel-lucent.com> <577FA916.4010808@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <577FA916.4010808@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.5.160527
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8A71299BC583B74DB6D0B639679F2847@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lurk/5DAqvLyETMFg1HAUz5xy3zhaU8w>
Subject: Re: [Lurk] LURK: proposed charter for review
X-BeenThere: lurk@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Limited Use of Remote Keys <lurk.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lurk>, <mailto:lurk-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lurk/>
List-Post: <mailto:lurk@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lurk-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lurk>, <mailto:lurk-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:13:07 -0000

Hi Yaron,

On 08/07/2016 14:22, "Lurk on behalf of Yaron Sheffer"
<lurk-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>I agree that we should not preclude future extensions. But this can be
>done with a variety of tools, including a simple protocol version
>number.

A version number works well in the context of a single interface, not if
we want have multiple interfaces under the LURK umbrella (see below).

>Do you think something more extensive is called for?

At the moment we have two main competing solutions: yours (let's call it
"cert-delegation") and Daniel's/Rich&Sam's (the "tls-signing-box").

I'm not sure whether only one will survive, or both will be standardised
as LURK interfaces?

If the latter, I'd probably want to have a way to know whether my edge
cache has to talk using the "cert-delegation" and/or "tls-signing-box"
interface with content provider X without having to turn knobs here and
there to make it happen :-)

Cheers, t

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email