Re: [mpls] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-ietf-mpls-05-01: (with BLOCK)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

> Just one little innocent question:-)
> 
> This says:
> 
> -   Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
>     and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.
> 
> and
> 
> -   Document mechanisms for securing MPLS networks in coordination
>     with the KARP working group.
> 
> Karp is precluded from considering confidentiality and its charter
> doesn't mention privacy. 

Right. That makes the second bullet in your quote true and accurate.

> Assuming that MPLS might be used e.g. near the endpoints of
> transatlantic fibres, (is it?) do you think the WG might be open
> to considering work on confidentiality/privacy, perpaps even on
> opportunistic encryption or the like? I guess one could argue
> that there are requirements there that have only recently
> become clear.
> 
> If this will go for external review I'm fine with asking the question
> on [e-mail] and will unblock.

I am asking that this does not go for external review so...

> If not, I'd appreciate a quick chat about this before I unblock.

The issue of confidentiality and privacy is definitely worth talking about, both for the control plane and for the data plane. 

I don't think we can drop a charter task in out of the blue since there is no evidence the WG wants to work on this. However, if the scenarios and high-level requirements were written up in an I-D it would:
- fit within the first bullet you quoted and so be within scope for 
  WG discussions
- possibly lead to a future recharter with a specific action

OK?

Cheers,
Adrian