IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 22 June 2016 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 A8E2512B00C for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 Fk3l7J1IqCSQ for <lurk@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 03:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A6B912B00B for <lurk@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 03:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DED6BE2F; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:22:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caEsgLu8gBar; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:22:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C598FBDF9; Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:21:59 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1466590920; bh=zpwTeydTFTJeNEtKyS0TNouJBcn1QDhWw9pA/LecTKo=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LARyjTeEd9E3+eqWU1hUf9jPPRqvYPONS/dkxddEytaXYp7TwRErcB5SefnGQmyDd YwM0aF1kniYnwc1lzp7qQsX6ScHSoTk9Ekqa5FaH9f8Oq7oOfNnYGCjfZaSDiRX41s +kWIs6ggc5BF6Jl3zTVdDZ4/31xkwQQkkEX0N6lQ=
To: Youjianjie <youjianjie@huawei.com>, "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <thomas.fossati@nokia.com>, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, "lurk@ietf.org" <lurk@ietf.org>
References: <D390086C.6A76E%thomas.fossati@alcatel-lucent.com> <F6C28B32DA084644BB6C8D0BD65B669DC0C87E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <576A66C7.1080602@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:21:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F6C28B32DA084644BB6C8D0BD65B669DC0C87E@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms090406040701000508060100"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lurk/dWq29IySI1iyc4TrPU3HPVgRXio>
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 10:22:03 -0000


On 22/06/16 09:40, Youjianjie wrote:
> It is about decryption under the negotiation agreement among the participated parties. 

Not wearing any hats, but if work in lurk is inconsistent with
RFC2804 that will IMO be a significant negative.

I'd say there are use-cases for lurk that don't have that problem
and that developing those would be more productive.

S.

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email