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

[Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

it seems that we converge to “L2 out of scope”.

Let’s take it a bit further…..    ;-) 

end-to-end encryption for privacy/security is out of scope.

What we need to protect is that no-one can mangle with auditing result.
We have to provide the tools that allow to audit the path and the have a proof of transit, but NASR will not design payload encryption solutions. 

Can we agree on this?

Ciao

L.

> On 14 Oct 2024, at 08:10, Liuchunchi(Peter) <liuchunchi=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> +1
>  
> From: Meiling Chen <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 11:27 AM
> To: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>; Liuchunchi(Peter) <[e-mail]>; Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>; Jean-Michel Combes <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>; 刘鹏辉 <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]>
> 发送时间： 2024-10-11 20:44
> 收件人： Liuchunchi(Peter) <mailto:liuchunchi=[e-mail]>; Luigi IANNONE <mailto:luigi.iannone=[e-mail]>; Jean-Michel Combes <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 抄送： Toerless Eckert <mailto:[e-mail]>; Michael Richardson <mailto:[e-mail]>; 刘鹏辉 <mailto:[e-mail]>; Meiling Chen <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 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
>  
> -- 
> nasr mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]