IETF Logo Mail Archive

[nasr] Re: 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120

"Liuchunchi(Peter)" <liuchunchi@huawei.com> Mon, 14 October 2024 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <liuchunchi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: nasr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nasr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1403AC1519BA for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 23:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f4SpHX5JRZ6Y for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 23:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8105C1519A2 for <nasr@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XRn012v4dz6K99K; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:10:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml100003.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.60]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59A26140445; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:10:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpeml100018.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.133) by frapeml100003.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:10:55 +0200
Received: from dggpeml100018.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.133]) by dggpeml100018.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.133]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:10:53 +0800
From: "Liuchunchi(Peter)" <liuchunchi@huawei.com>
To: Meiling Chen <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>, Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com>, Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [nasr] Re: 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120
Thread-Index: AQHbFFzScoYwJ78sE0+8JtVYf3xQlrJ0uueAgAAoK4CAACPigIABSy6AgAZdORCAAReHAIAAHM2AgAGDYECAAaDdAIAEoTeTgAAtr7A=
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 06:10:53 +0000
Message-ID: <f1cd3cd20a3b41f4b847ec586097ca8d@huawei.com>
References: <17219.1722798809@obiwan.sandelman.ca>, <202408091800065008405@chinamobile.com>, <744c46d5.25b2.19149927bcb.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com>, <ca7257d77709444a914c402f419ad0b0@huawei.com>, <630665a9.436d.1914a2e2fc7.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com>, <c15aa26cea984239baf9d2d96b6ed5a7@huawei.com>, <ZvyK4n-BI9S-SF94@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>, <24175.1727974451@obiwan.sandelman.ca>, <Zv7t5QNKYiBXkLYf@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>, <5925.1727990783@obiwan.sandelman.ca>, <ZwAhzypyovggw3n0@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>, <51088332df184b1b90017a023b07a639@huawei.com>, <CAA7e52rArVz8LKh_=50RPsLLkBO72BXAoab4L3gogP84OVg8Tw@mail.gmail.com>, <f0b125fcf8fc45c4b3991202c9b0a3c6@huawei.com>, <b8af360c37e8436ba370c70ea165ba85@huawei.com>, <f1634460-3fff-7929-10af-73052588dd8e@ietf.contact> <2024101411264178395610@chinamobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <2024101411264178395610@chinamobile.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.114.71]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f1cd3cd20a3b41f4b847ec586097ca8dhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: WURNNQQ66K3XD6EZ7X3TVB33QGTTFRKQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: WURNNQQ66K3XD6EZ7X3TVB33QGTTFRKQ
X-MailFrom: liuchunchi@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 刘鹏辉 <liupenghui1982@163.com>, "nasr@ietf.org" <nasr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [nasr] Re: 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120
List-Id: Network Attestation for Secure Routing <nasr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nasr/2CEpobS2UWhpvo7MJXyJ2R0CBWs>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nasr>
List-Help: <mailto:nasr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:nasr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nasr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:nasr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:nasr-leave@ietf.org>

+1

From: Meiling Chen <chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 11:27 AM
To: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>; Liuchunchi(Peter) <liuchunchi@huawei.com>; Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iannone@huawei.com>; Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>; Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; 刘鹏辉 <liupenghui1982@163.com>; nasr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nasr] Re: 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120

Hi Henk,

Agree with you.
we assumed that L2 was not in the scope, but if there is confusion, it is necessary to explicitly state it in the Charter.

Best,
Meiling

发件人： Henk Birkholz<mailto:henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>
发送时间： 2024-10-11 20:44
收件人： Liuchunchi(Peter)<mailto:liuchunchi=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Luigi IANNONE<mailto:luigi.iannone=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Jean-Michel Combes<mailto:jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
抄送： Toerless Eckert<mailto:tte@cs.fau.de>; Michael Richardson<mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; 刘鹏辉<mailto:liupenghui1982@163.com>; Meiling Chen<mailto:chenmeiling@chinamobile.com>; nasr@ietf.org<mailto:nasr@ietf.org>
主题： [nasr] Re: 回复: Re: Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120
Amplifying on that statement, layer2 taps/outlets seems to be
out-of-scope. Is that a kind of clarifying baseline agreement?

On 10.10.24 09:04, Liuchunchi(Peter) wrote:
> proof-of-non-transit, very hard to achieve

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status