Subject: [nasr] Re: [saag] Re: Re: Re: NASR BOF Follow-Up
From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
To: Luigi IANNONE <[email-masked]>
Cc: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>, Meiling Chen <[email-masked]>, Henk Birkholz <[email-masked]>, Liuchunchi <liuchunchi=[email-masked]>, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, IETF SAAG <[email-masked]>, Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 09:32:00 -0700
List-Id: Network Attestation for Secure Routing <nasr.ietf.org>

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 12:52 AM Luigi IANNONE <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi Watson,
>
> >
> > Correct. Some claims are easy to verify. Most aren't. Statements that
> "the
> > router supports X" aren't really interesting. Statements that "this
> > configuration will never pass your traffic over a bad link" are, but are
> a lot
> > harder to show.
> >
> > >
>
> [LI] Agreed. This is a very claim hard show/attest.
> Note however that this is not what NASR is trying to do.
> NASR is more about router has feature X, Y, and Z which is what I want,
> and that traffic goes through the selected routers that support X, Y and Z.
> NASR is not about proving that traffic does not go somewhere else (proof
> of non-transit is out of scope).
>

As I understood the presentations, you wanted to make claims like:

* This traffic was sent over an encrypted link
* All traffic to address X will be sent over an encrypted link
* This traffic is not being sent to a spanning port or otherwise available
for monitoring

Correct?

-Ekr

-Ekr

> Ciao
>
> L.
>