IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Status] SPRING Charter

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 16 October 2013 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: status@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8872F11E8255; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DpQNxqTkEq6K; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB6811E8136; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9422CCBE; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:38:50 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Kr8T-b0D8IJ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:38:50 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0392CC48; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:38:50 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <9C5D9C4D-F90E-48B3-A005-3DAC1EEC378F@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:38:50 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA242DD4-AEE1-465B-8A3C-8887FA1542BB@piuha.net>
References: <52584CCA.8000902@cisco.com> <201310151346.r9FDkSIl023262@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <525ECA07.2070207@cisco.com> <9C5D9C4D-F90E-48B3-A005-3DAC1EEC378F@juniper.net>
To: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "status@ietf.org" <status@ietf.org>, stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [Status] SPRING Charter
X-BeenThere: status@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <status.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/status>, <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/status>
List-Post: <mailto:status@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status>, <mailto:status-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:39:00 -0000

I'd suggest that the distinction between trusted and non-trusted or host and router is not as useful as we might expect.

What I was trying to suggest with my text was specifying a requirement for a technical mechanism that helps prevent inappropriate headers from being believed. Trusted/non-trusted in itself would not be as useful, until it results in a similar specific requirement. And I fear that somewhere down the line someone would decide all we need is inside/outside security model, and I do not think that helps enough in this case.

But I don't mind the new text if the old text is still also there….

Jari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email