IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lurk] 答复: 答复: Is this scenario covered by LURK?

"Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com> Wed, 22 June 2016 11:53 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 BA2B112D0AF for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:53:51 -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 77fMvS7weO2Q for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:53:49 -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 67B8712B031 for <lurk@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 04:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 4C11585B28CBD; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:53:45 +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 u5MBrkKQ012137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:53:47 GMT
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u5MBrMYi023982 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:53:45 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA08.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.4.136]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:53:36 +0200
From: "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com>, "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, "lurk@ietf.org" <lurk@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lurk] 答复: 答复: Is this scenario covered by LURK?
Thread-Index: AQHRzHy0iOCISoKILECmEPIwjOHR3Q==
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:53:35 +0000
Message-ID: <D3903767.6A7E0%thomas.fossati@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <D390086C.6A76E%thomas.fossati@alcatel-lucent.com> <F6C28B32DA084644BB6C8D0BD65B669DC0C87E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <576A66C7.1080602@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <576A66C7.1080602@cs.tcd.ie>
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: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5"
Content-ID: <ED1559DD7CD15548B667FDBD00AF1B88@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lurk/7UH_NHxqA6hiyb9ZIy5K0gJpKNU>
Subject: Re: [Lurk] 答复: 答复: Is this scenario covered by LURK?
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: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:53:51 -0000

Hi Stephen,

On 22/06/2016 11:21, "Lurk on behalf of Stephen Farrell"
<lurk-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>PS: I'd say exactly the same about using spud/plus to do things
>that RFC2804 says we don't do so this isn't really a "what venue"
>issue.

Just to clear any doubt: I wasn't suggesting to move the "give me your
session keys" argument to PLUS.

Both because of RFC 2804 considerations I did in a previous email in this
same thread, and also because I don't think you need complete visibility
on the flows to do traffic management.

I was suggesting to bring the "I need to do traffic management, can you
tell me a bit more about this flow" to PLUS because that's exactly the
kind of three-party cooperation PLUS is meant to enable.

Cheers, t

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email