IETF Logo Mail Archive

[P2PSIP] Breaking RELOAD [was Re: Identity certificate segregation]

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Fri, 15 July 2011 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B70B21F8C0F for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C0xJ+xS2-OyM for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B68321F8BF4 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:55c:4c15:5f80:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08] (unknown [IPv6:2001:55c:4c15:5f80:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08]) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C1272199E; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:54:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E207F1C.9080500@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:55:40 -0700
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110626 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
References: <BANLkTikuy8qpZ42Zod1YK2+iYv1ib6=Yag@mail.gmail.com> <1307629878.30919.87.camel@toedo> <4DF0FD49.3020505@acm.org> <1307641649.5184.17.camel@santeles> <4E00F7CE.7080402@acm.org> <4E0DB3EC.1040705@ericsson.com> <B3E5E380-1759-4B9A-9556-CEC4E6383D59@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B3E5E380-1759-4B9A-9556-CEC4E6383D59@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: P2PSIP WG <p2psip@ietf.org>
Subject: [P2PSIP] Breaking RELOAD [was Re: Identity certificate segregation]
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:55:52 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/07/2011 03:34 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> This would break all the current deployments and implementation and not just
> in a way where some new software would need to be pushed out - all new
> certificates would need to be issues. From my point of view, this is too late
> for this change and instead it could be addressed with an extension.

About this "breaking current deployment" thing, it seems to me that anyway when
RELOAD will be published as an RFC, the version number with be incremented to
1.0 (0x0a), so implementations of the RFC will *not* be compatible with *any* of
the current implementations.  And because of this, I really do not understand
why the authors of RELOAD are fighting so hard to not break things that will be
broken anyway - there was multiple instances of things that could have been
improved in the document but stayed because of this (the fragment bit is one
example of this).  Having been there multiple times I really understand the
plight of early implementers but I would never ever use this as a justification
to keep useless stuff in a protocol.  What should have been done is simply to
increment the version each time a new version of the draft would have broken
interoperability - and we had the possibility to do that 8 times (versions 0.1
to 0.9).

> 
> On Jul 1, 2011, at 5:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> please, let me know whether or not these modifications will be included in
>> the base draft at this point.
>> 

[...]

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Professional email: petithug@acm.org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk4gfxoACgkQ9RoMZyVa61cxtQCeK9nUyj9XzOp0+8q9Mdhtp9Sg
3QoAoJaA4VCBUqtphhjrUMyAiaVmsNRc
=gx2i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email