IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Secdispatch] GNS at dinrg

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sun, 02 August 2020 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F603A07F4 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 17:40:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.915
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4w8HWGPvxX7L for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f44.google.com (mail-ot1-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE59E3A07F2 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Aug 2020 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f44.google.com with SMTP id y16so584834otj.12 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5bFzK4k2YquaJn3aoOJXIMXDEBGuyaVfaLwhcHLIi80=; b=VW+Z6Eg+hsI42lPIIviOCXkftKD76M22uMswr/L2my97Fm9SWYN9ku6PhISqPq2Hmo +Tzlu9RHr8pROZQxptGm/qGnwnafn6BG34S7UfgYt4Y8CBguABWkjRGOOOIReJeWazuG 0hxh+g+BkQHd2nRoPM6TrAXUk2WWQlhBap3AKhmYyM0xtOGsmmiz1qxnJNeQpKs1wDMb oVy6p/DNXHn+DoYmUUJTFgotXwTrRFmK7qmk9IfdUSh601B+983l93PWIdOvhUWQUGox FLaGOzQ8OUwGNuZl39p6p1+m1+o/Pxaavoli56CB4HrDnHV1wkrM2/QMNlKV/KpEeUeL G+lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533XnuuRor/tz5KZSvPeUgbngyBETZ0d2lOaqVa+F1gz37iXuGNN KaUQ458OWXObSJG5Ony7HRIcZR/scxVvXAAPb0o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycp4Sg6KFsyaQ45NbvEQyNL1+WIySiEPhFVG0FTJAZl2+JVyWRKzfkEREe8uQWPWkUsrKQ0La9l9ISvOZVWJs=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7319:: with SMTP id e25mr9074218otk.155.1596328848070; Sat, 01 Aug 2020 17:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00a64a56-3c85-49ca-636c-25e39d4f659f@nomountain.net> <E63BE118-1EC6-4D11-91F7-41678FDFB618@posteo.de> <695d3ee9-3708-7d86-4862-34895d95aca2@nomountain.net>
In-Reply-To: <695d3ee9-3708-7d86-4862-34895d95aca2@nomountain.net>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2020 20:40:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiYGozmoxbHQC9AtZKfTAzgVDY87Cd6ujm8xRvc31NtRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
Cc: "Schanzenbach, Martin" <mschanzenbach@posteo.de>, IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ef1c9805abda4502"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/xOaGFUQ4SkGNHNak9As8JJuCfys>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] GNS at dinrg
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 00:40:51 -0000

I second the proposal to consider an IRTF group.

One Way Sequence based naming is something we should have been looking at
since the Haber Stornetta Surety patent expired. Could apply the same
approach to RPKI and even (one day) DNS.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:57 PM Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
wrote:

> On 7/31/20 8:31 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> > I hope I understand all of your points. The way I read the charter
> > of DINRG correctly, our draft would fit into the goals and
> > objectives of this WG, right?
>
> Well, maybe.  I'm not really sure what your goals are
> for the document.  If it's to standardize a protocol, dinrg
> is definitely not the right place.  If it's to refine
> the document, contribute to the research community, and
> find collaborators, sure, but that needn't entail draft
> adoption, or even publication as an internet draft.  Note
> that it's actually possible to do both, although it's rare
> in practice (HIP had a research group for a few years, as
> one example).  Also note that while CFRG occasionally
> publishes standards, I think it's alone in that among IRTF
> research groups, and is something of a (much-loved)
> aberration.
>
> Melinda
>
> --
> Melinda Shore
> melinda.shore@nomountain.net
>
> Software longa, hardware brevis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> Secdispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email