IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management

Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <frodek@tele.no>
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 8C31112D63B for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] 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 nC7c0Ryl90vd for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gorgon.tele.no (gorgon.tele.no [193.156.17.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4308412D5F9 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=[IPv6:::1]) by gorgon.tele.no with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <frodek@tele.no>) id 1bQFZL-0006s0-7t; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:07:23 +0200
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
References: <43a39476-9327-87ef-204c-d7c614a80669@tele.no> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607211643150.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no>
Message-ID: <0f504f66-1df8-e2da-b55a-3e44e67d0912@tele.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:03:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607211643150.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/zjEBA54cLhyqtskc-kPOQ-FcDW8>
Cc: spud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management
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 15:06:12 -0000

On 21.07.2016 16:47, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> SPUD could be used to have similar benefits for non-TCP traffic, in 
> that it might be easier to identify un-solicited traffic.

I'm not a native English speaker and I'm sorry if I was not clear enough 
in my initial e-mail. I was talking about existing operational practices 
hindered by end-to-end encryption and that PLUS can bring back (i.e. 
referring to a statement today that "mobile operators need PLUS").

Your example is covers new functionality to enable FWs/etc with 
"signaling and control impaired with respect to TCP" (As Joe Hildebrand 
stated on one of the slides on his presentation at the BoF). Except that 
a solution not requiring PLUS is preferable, there's nothing wrong with 
this IMHO.

frodek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email