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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 08/15/2013 03:44 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 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.

Great.

> 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. 

I agree.

> 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?

Yes. However, I'm sure that I don't know what'd be a good
set of even high-level requirements. But I am quite happy
to try work with others on that if it helps.

I'll s/block/comment/ and we can chat on the call if
we're still in chatting mood when we get to that. Or
later if we're all chatted out today.

Thanks,
S.


> 
> Cheers, Adrian
> 
> 
> 
>