IETF Logo Mail Archive

[sfc] draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit - mechanisms

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 05 June 2018 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14B913107D for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 TrZ9MwXpGtSJ for <sfc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18D38131074 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E664A05B7 for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1528207503; bh=woFIkXPmDmyyj/PoWAEkkM1co0FkytUu0PKcytjHi3A=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=bLPMIA4efueMucjGr5MbCFFUWA2sUsvisC/M4cbM5phkGFIJyOK3P8JC26B68nOzk GR2yH2UiH1MZz/BsVOFYUTU+ZK2ncRfKZPx23dCfwBgeDS6ONAJSX0pPI6tmxHA3GE X75pDM76TXD8f0VM9jFJ7Z8ih1g8Kmup9E6DZbhs=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91F704A047D for <sfc@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 07:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <ede95d99-5962-4837-1590-e005b8676109@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:05:01 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/0yGk6ZwjSNl_1OWKjhsjLz1RypA>
Subject: [sfc] draft-ietf-sfc-proof-of-transit - mechanisms
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:05:09 -0000

My impression of the conversation in London was that the working group 
was leaning towards keeping both of the proof of transit algorithms.
One because it is very efficient and confirms that each SF has been visited,
and the other because although it is more complex, it verifies order of 
visiting, which is important in a significant subset of cases.

Do folks on the list agree with that direction?

Yours,
Joel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email