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

[Meiling Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Luigi,

end-to-end encryption for privacy/security is out of scope. ---YES
What we need to protect is that no-one can mangle with auditing result.---YES
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.  ---Not Sure, if we don't know the encryption solutions, how to make audit tools?

Best,
Meiling
 
From: Luigi Iannone
Date: 2024-10-14 20:27
To: Liuchunchi(Peter)
CC: Meiling Chen; Henk Birkholz; Luigi IANNONE; Jean-Michel Combes; Toerless Eckert; Michael Richardson; 刘鹏辉; nasr
Subject: Re: [nasr] Secure Routing Path Consideration- China Mobile-ietf120
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
发送时间： 2024-10-11 20:44
收件人： Liuchunchi(Peter); Luigi IANNONE; Jean-Michel Combes
抄送： Toerless Eckert; Michael Richardson; 刘鹏辉; Meiling Chen; [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]