Re: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?

"mls.ietf" <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17B812D658 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 DglGsEeX8OZR for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (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 11C1412D0B4 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p64so31464439pfb.1 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7rOf+u76pfBubdobWpWjEWztf5AiGFE3tn9DQRuMwQs=; b=QF7DkiVlcvqznt+NC4vIx0wTb7UeXKNFg2nj2GxKCIbDra+/IT+yeTD1G+FLO26OD8 IOAIgL9kk4tHgyytqFMMa1uazjgix0/I6oOWTQRd+G81Ubpx6321YOZycWsKO8ByI20Z 0oU6YeeP+K2aggxylNoE+sV0UUehwhijbMW2Kcx9u6ljMbkAoSjQxNy7azRbnVJaUf0K 11MTDtwD1GJfVjJbyhJeBmYAEAPW+kqzqWr7DdTxd/JxxwNkhfGZKJ67hQQdzVekThAN POcgV+s8dIdIodxNDxjkjS4HiZ985niNxN9MZIlpUXe6Xqq7XiS/pyPlmqokCn3Mu1au IN9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7rOf+u76pfBubdobWpWjEWztf5AiGFE3tn9DQRuMwQs=; b=RWZt1q5+xOullcvVV1f7DepEEaBSgDbNUcaqd9mVJrExx7/a97x8nuPWtw9dr4M3s7 SWINXjeJfr1zavoSbadtH5kz4yrhpjGounXABhNj2J0o/0jW8t6iv1RFjbDBNqicmtoK ltQ32AWiM6v/w0/ceeKPcwLcV/A5MjBeE4mAYWuKjTz3Bn9xW6fZ03ey911uCbwsXjqq knRZlqW/4ZQEyEdxRE55Z9bhhpX11lMFCRaITACV7Z+2thuBL6ndoA9Na4MSH3dwc8W4 G6hls/BAB4+YTxb9Ks5BydZPhUn2yA2++dS2qe/8eO1v+dYW7WMcJ3ByF/oE+I89qPNA w3HA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIlR3XkX06asVcT1aDMKTHhGRU/mUGe9H2D9qckqugBma9AJIFLVwutd8atiV5q+G49bRuVSYGs4meoPw==
X-Received: by 10.98.87.138 with SMTP id i10mr69703588pfj.16.1469114883719; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.47.163 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D4892D396@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5c86a251-7acd-6036-542c-55cfad96ee08@gmail.com> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D4892D396@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: "mls.ietf" <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:28:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHSbG1_UsCvz5phVG7Ukos_8pBfs97A=dVvYATPWGKJ9Bbmghw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135189ec74638053826f692
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/mlImb1u6jieKdIZSSLP4aML_mS4>
Cc: "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] The PLUS BOF today and why should PLUS be better than the pack?
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:28:11 -0000

Hi Michael, all,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) <
michael.scharf@nokia.com> wrote:

> For what it is worth, NSIS has been raised quite some time ago, e.g.:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spud/current/msg00367.html
>
> There was some follow-up discussion on in-band vs. out-of-band.
>
> Of course, NSIS was not the first attempt in this space.
>

Right and I am not riding the NSIS train but more the why the hell all
attempts to make use of path-coupled signaling to let endpoints talk to the
net and vice versa did fail.

I do not see that any of the reasons why they failed, e.g., missing trust
on a global, Internet-wide scale, is not valid anymore today.

Cheers,

  Martin