Re: [Trust-router] Considering delaying BOF Request

David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> Wed, 15 May 2013 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC4C11E80AD for <trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 13:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 A8MacrVnwWX4 for <trust-router@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx7.kent.ac.uk (mx7.kent.ac.uk [129.12.21.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FD611E80A3 for <trust-router@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 129.9.113.87.dyn.plus.net ([87.113.9.129] helo=[192.168.1.66]) by mx7.kent.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>) id 1UcibZ-0002n9-8x; Wed, 15 May 2013 21:47:21 +0100
Message-ID: <5193F457.4090601@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 21:47:19 +0100
From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Josh Howlett <Josh.Howlett@ja.net>
References: <CDB9A75E.22F2F%josh.howlett@ja.net>
In-Reply-To: <CDB9A75E.22F2F%josh.howlett@ja.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "trust-router@ietf.org" <trust-router@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trust-router] Considering delaying BOF Request
X-BeenThere: trust-router@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "ABFAB Trust Router discussion list." <trust-router.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trust-router>, <mailto:trust-router-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trust-router>
List-Post: <mailto:trust-router@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trust-router-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trust-router>, <mailto:trust-router-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:47:35 -0000

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
>