Re: [Status] SPRING Charter

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Could we perhaps say:
> 
> "There is an assumed trust model such that any node
> imposing an explicit route on a packet is assumed to
> be allowed to do so. Some hosts may be part of the
> trust domain, but others may not. SPRING must provide
> the means to distinguish between these two classes
> of host and prevent untrusted hosts from imposing
> a route on its packets. Administrative and trust
> boundaries may strip explicit routes from a packet."

As you observe elsewhere in your note, the distinction between "hosts" and "routers" is blurry at best, and from the point of view of the trust model I think there's neither a need nor a value to draw the distinction at all. For example, a BYOD router is just as much of a potential problem as a BYOD host.

Insofar as the added text really says "all the stuff we said you have to do for a 'node' applies equally to the special class of node called 'host'", it's harmless, but it's also unnecessary. I guess one might even argue it to be mildly harmful insofar as a casual reader might suppose that if hosts are called out specially, the listed considerations don't apply to other types of node. ("The exception that proves the rule" and all that.)

I'd be inclined to leave it as you had it.

--John