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

Frode Kileng <> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C31112D63B for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nC7c0Ryl90vd for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4308412D5F9 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1bQFZL-0006s0-7t; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:07:23 +0200
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
References: <> <>
From: Frode Kileng <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.