Re: [Trust-router] Considering delaying BOF Request

Hi Josh

I agree with your view, specially in networks where a PKI is already deployed.

Best Regards.

-------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Marin Lopez, PhD
Dept. Information and Communications Engineering (DIIC)
Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
30100 Murcia - Spain
Telf: +34868888501 Fax: +34868884151 e-mail: rafa@um.es
-------------------------------------------------------

El 15/05/2013, a las 22:59, Josh Howlett <Josh.Howlett@ja.net> escribió:

> Thanks David.
> 
> I am *not* advocating that you do this :-) but I should note that its
> perfectly valid to employ ABFAB with X.509 PKI (using certificates with
> RadSec, rather than the PSKs acquired from Trust Router).
> 
> (I would personally argue that you are able to construct a much more
> coherent infrastructure using both ABFAB and Trust Router, but
> architectural coherency is perhaps a matter of taste; in any event we do
> not have long to wait until we have an operational infrastructure with
> which to test these notions of coherency and taste to destruction!).
> 
> In any case, I look forward to hearing about the results of your work when
> that's done, as that will really help to inform this kind of discussion.
> 
> Josh.
> 
> On 15/05/2013 21:47, "David Chadwick" <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Simply because the Trust router is an integral part of ABFAB, and we are
>> integrating ABFAB into OpenStack. So we need to understand what the
>> trust router's trust model is, how it is established and managed, and
>> how we can integrate that into the existing trust fabric that we have
>> already implemented in OpenStack.
>> 
>> regards
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> On 15/05/2013 21:26, Josh Howlett wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>> 
>>> Sam writes that
>>> 
>>>> I think that trust router will work well for that use case.
>>> 
>>> When we talk about Trust Router, we often get push-back along the lines
>>> of
>>> "that's a valid use case, but technology Foo already supports that".
>>> 
>>> This is often true if you're willing to apply technology Foo in a
>>> non-typical fashion. So you could, for example, employ X509 in ways that
>>> mimic Trust Router's CoIs. These may not be particularly practical, but
>>> nonetheless it could in principle be done.
>>> 
>>> So -- playing Devil's Advocate -- could I ask why you are interested in
>>> Trust Router as opposed to some other trust technology?
>>> 
>>> Josh.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a
>>> not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024
>>> and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
>>> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238
>>> 
> 
> 
> Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a 
> not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
> and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
> Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238
> 
> _______________________________________________
> trust-router mailing list
> trust-router@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trust-router