IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Sun, 04 August 2024 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 71B74C14F617 for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 12:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 C6revIgNH01m for <nasr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 12:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 438F8C14F681 for <nasr@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 12:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16DDB3899C; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 15:13:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id JrADMCuLJg8d; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 15:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1722798809; bh=cTgLX7FxtpkNccsStM0u1dQOhRIF7GTV5Z5gETyiqSg=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=JqazkZGGtgn7xtgNpRrU7ZyqXtWQZuAnalycbWPtldqowL8byGkUDg4NiZTtTF11K z06G/ZEL2g9MiARbgt4omgWJlt6SMZBPwS730xSeGA58HyBQIblXFXY08DyYtS/ywH 122LlMYLcIWYnKwZ77SQXUsDaIHLn4kGnhkoN2b6rByY6571lowB0YMzTs0fbVAX8+ 7QvLpKupqa1j+VKgCWEqJI80pfUlUbKCMhkEspmxXXy+9LWXIAov9LOeozyBOuAQRs qG3PfHVvr7ceWH2DK6fGdcfYz2DK+ATz+31wdALRUAn9KCfU9qy9gOTg+gzt8elTMk ssD/4YbQF0jEQ==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1623899B; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 15:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2797A16DD; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 15:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: =?UTF-8?B?5YiY6bmP6L6J?= <liupenghui1982@163.com>, "nasr@ietf.org" <nasr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5aaf2f9d.1c92.19110d4dea0.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com>
References: <202407231553159277592@chinamobile.com>, <514b701e.3dbe.190e2e04151.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com> <202408011054476926448@chinamobile.com> <fe9299737de2469da894ed6e55a53bf1@huawei.com> <5aaf2f9d.1c92.19110d4dea0.Coremail.liupenghui1982@163.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 15:13:29 -0400
Message-ID: <17219.1722798809@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: F4LTKFW36QV6SWCPKPOXGD4L22YKWNHL
X-Message-ID-Hash: F4LTKFW36QV6SWCPKPOXGD4L22YKWNHL
X-MailFrom: mcr@sandelman.ca
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
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
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/_LA-uDWcV24VV9LuVIyaMmpZLxA>
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>

I don't see anything in your summary of GDPR that says that encrypted PII can
not cross another territory.

At each end the GDPR clearly applies, but for example, I see nothing in your
description that prevents data from Geneva to Bern (both in Switzerland) from
travelling on fiber to the south of Lake Geneva/Leman.  That is, through
France. (is that a better route for fiber? Probably not. But a redundant
microwave link from mountain to mountain would make a lot of sense)
(Or: Zagreb to Bucharest, both EU countries, via Belgrade)
Does GDPR really apply here?

I'm sure such edicts exist, but if GDPR mandates this, it would be best to have
a very specific clause referenced.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

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