[Spud] Middlebox to middlebox declarations in SPUD?

Szilveszter Nadas <Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com> Fri, 06 March 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C841A006F for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 YWSqQbvUjiQd for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:59:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 208441A0023 for <spud@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:59:32 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79c86d000000fc0-3e-54f9cee27390
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CF.7D.04032.2EEC9F45; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:59:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB303.ericsson.se ([169.254.3.70]) by ESESSHC020.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:59:30 +0100
From: Szilveszter Nadas <Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com>
To: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Middlebox to middlebox declarations in SPUD?
Thread-Index: AdBYJoa+SD/vVT23T368fpODlbcb5g==
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:59:29 +0000
Message-ID: <EA4C43BE752A194597B002779DF69BAE23CA0A02@ESESSMB303.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.146]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EA4C43BE752A194597B002779DF69BAE23CA0A02ESESSMB303erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7jcz9DDNZNZbdYdOEpowOjx5Il P5kCGKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mrqm3mEqeKdSsfFlA2sD41H5LkZODgkBE4ldj6axQNhiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4wijRf+Q2K4SziFFi65x9zCBVbAIWEg0rN7OB2CICyhJr7yxiB7GFBUwlbj65 ygwRt5JoWQ1j60nMPLgeqIaDg0VARWLVAVGQMK+Ar8S8nefAxjACLf5+ag0TiM0sIC5x68l8 JoiDBCSW7DnPDGGLSrx8/I8VwlaS+LHhEgtEfb7E0oeXGSFmCkqcnPmEZQKj0Cwko2YhKZuF pAwiriOxYPcnNghbW2LZwtfMMPaZA4+ZkMUXMLKvYhQtTi1Oyk03MtJLLcpMLi7Oz9PLSy3Z xAiMiYNbfhvsYHz53PEQowAHoxIPr4HEzxAh1sSy4srcQ4zSHCxK4rx2xodChATSE0tSs1NT C1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTAyOqid7wl41mE06X/bQoVzVSf/Xe5PVhNpc+xw0noyz+xIvXmJ 14mehWpbrjzMSH5tPO8sa5BH/4yLJSbvD/A8+DbPbaZPqPxvRnbHNOerDf8fuYd03X2dPj1f 823Ki5wuv/ipT+at2h0dXc7dvXjGjeKMEzsk6pxaetIdzd83GaVk/j32xlmJpTgj0VCLuag4 EQC+Eti1agIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/_fCpEN56WJw_LoJ43WGC1HT0ZA4>
Subject: [Spud] Middlebox to middlebox declarations in SPUD?
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:59:35 -0000

Hi,

An option we came up with in one of the discussions is whether there are use cases for middlebox to middlebox communications in SPUD (or Path to Path as in the Use Case doc terminology). At first glance it is hard to find a reason to use SPUD for this purpose, still it might be worth some thinking to not rule out this too fast.


A related topic, which occurred to me is the separation of trust domains in end-user devices. What if both the application and the user/OS would like to communicate declarations? They might have different relations, intents and authority. Shall the user be able to override app declarations or vice versa? Shall both be able to make and receive declarations?

Philosophically, we could look at the user/OS as a middlebox in this scenario. In that case some it is easier to find middlebox to middlebox use cases. If this philosophy is applied it might also be easier to solve these questions.

(Of course there can be even more actors in the OS, like middleware, TP, Browser, App running in browser.)

Cheers,
Sz.