From bryce@scalum.com Fri Feb 1 00:04:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0F63A6868; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:04:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 97.888 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=97.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_MESSAGE=1, INVALID_DATE=1.245, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, TRACKER_ID=2.003, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.1 HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR HELO using IP Address (not private) * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 1.2 INVALID_DATE Invalid Date: header (not RFC 2822) * 2.0 TRACKER_ID BODY: Incorporates a tracking ID number * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: toptenwest.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: toptenwest.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: toptenwest.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: toptenwest.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: toptenwest.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: toptenwest.com] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [123.22.81.94 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 1.5 DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX RBL: Envelope sender in * bogusmx.rfc-ignorant.org * 20 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist * [URIs: toptenwest.com] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlksOL+N9B7s; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [123.22.81.94] (unknown [123.22.81.94]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D4B3A685C; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:04:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [123.22.81.94] by smtp.secureserver.net; Fri, 32 Jan 2008 15:31:42 +0700 Date: Fri, 32 Jan 2008 15:31:42 +0700 From: "Janell Ware" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.62.14) Educational Reply-To: bryce@scalum.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <604744558.03921456012092@scalum.com> To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Subject: ***SPAM*** 97.888 (5) TakeALookWorldwideShippingProducts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------D3DA0C597BF6E8" ------------D3DA0C597BF6E8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit New generation extra-strength med, for the treatment of ED only in men. Benefits: 6-8 Hour Response Period; Improves Focus; Accelerates Recovery from Prior I|\|tercourse; Amplified Passion and Desire; Rapid-Absorption of the Chemical Component; Increased Staaamina and Libido; Psychological Confidence and Relief; Helpfull in Hard Cases. If you experience some lapses in your sexual life, please, do not hesitate or make your life worse. Just a blue-pill will cure all your doubts and restore the life you will not help enjoying. http://toptenwest.com (Wait a moment until the page will be loaded entirely) ------------D3DA0C597BF6E8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit New generation extra-strength med, for the treatment of ED only in men.

Benefits:
6-8 Hour Response Period;
Improves Focus;
Accelerates Recovery from Prior I|\|tercourse;
Amplified Passion and Desire;
Rapid-Absorption of the Chemical Component;
Increased Staaaamina and Libido;
Psychological Confidence and Relief;
Helpfull in Hard Cases.

If you experience some lapses in your sexual life, please, do not hesitate or make your life worse.
Just a blue-pill will cure all your doubts and restore the life you will not help enjoying.

http://toptenwest.com
(Wait a moment until the page will be loaded entirely) ------------D3DA0C597BF6E8-- From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:53:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7AF294D3A for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:52:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PpYPGqWZ3ZkV for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6072294CFF for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:28:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:04:36 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/discuss/discuss-archive%40megatron.ietf.org From mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Fri Feb 1 05:55:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4809929477C for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:52:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h915L-1TSxtx for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:52:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6722E294D41 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:28:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: ietf.org mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@ietf.org To: discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:04:37 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: mailman@core3.amsl.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com Errors-To: mailman-bounces@core3.amsl.com This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your ietf.org mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, mailman-request@ietf.org) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@ietf.org. Thanks! http://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/discuss/discuss-archive%40megatron.ietf.org From Byron.Bradford@moffettproperties.com Fri Feb 1 12:15:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A153A68F4 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:15:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 79.419 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=79.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DSBL=0.961, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 0.6 HELO_EQ_IT HELO_EQ_IT * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: thestasist.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: thestasist.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: thestasist.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: thestasist.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: thestasist.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: thestasist.com] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [81.208.83.230 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 1.0 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org * [] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [81.208.83.230 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 0.3 HOST_MISMATCH_NET HOST_MISMATCH_NET Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxfZU0DqG9Zc for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:15:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from giannib1a52108.fastwebnet.it (81-208-83-230.fastres.net [81.208.83.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8527628C276 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:14:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:12:26 -0100 Message-ID: 248e01c8650f$4a1516b0$3a2c1617@giannib1a52108 From: "Doctor Byron Bradford" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 79.419 (5) Something interesting for you MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do you want to forget about your sexual problems? You dont know what to do? It's simply! For more details click here http://thestasist.com/ Best regards and have a passionate love From nina.cerkovnik@ade.com Tue Feb 5 10:38:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id E950D3A6BEC; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from 151.205.197-77.rev.gaoland.net (unknown [77.197.205.151]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E21E3A6F92 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:22:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [38.131.86.51] (helo=ltjz) by 151.205.197-77.rev.gaoland.net with smtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) id 1JMAfz-0007KJ-2O; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:26:43 +0100 Message-ID: <47A7906C.4020701@ade.com> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:23:40 +0100 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Subject: Brand-trusted blue-pill! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080204-0, 04/02/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Can u believe that WE will make you h@ppy? http://vjjm.speakpound.com From _upro_3ix_mail@mcelectric.com Tue Feb 5 10:38:54 2008 Return-Path: <_upro_3ix_mail@mcelectric.com> X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 7B4173A8D1E; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from 215.subnet125-161-2.speedy.telkom.net.id (unknown [125.161.2.215]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D42A3A8C93 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 23:30:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from uqeu ([113.38.214.118]) by 215.subnet125-161-2.speedy.telkom.net.id with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:31:52 +0700 Message-ID: <000e01c867c9$2d109cd0$76d62671@uqeu> From: <_upro_3ix_mail@mcelectric.com> To: Subject: I Love You with All I Am Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:31:52 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1437 Our Love is Free http://121.158.6.109/ From rhvillagran@bss.ind.in Tue Feb 5 10:43:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id AC30C3A6B02; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from host172-32-dynamic.2-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host172-32-dynamic.2-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [79.2.32.172]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6049B3A99BB for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 03:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from veod ([209.212.188.112]) by host172-32-dynamic.2-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id m15BKhZl053336; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:20:43 +0100 Message-ID: <47A845F6.4020508@bss.ind.in> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:18:14 +0100 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Subject: U can be sure in success with this time-tested blue bill Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071208-0, 08/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Make her tremble with passion! http://fgai.measureremember.com From Contact@clientbydesign.us Tue Feb 5 10:43:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 359D53A71C8; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-075-183-097-107.triad.res.rr.com (cpe-075-183-097-107.triad.res.rr.com [75.183.97.107]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BD373A8104 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:30:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7ff501c867a7$025a5f67$6b61b74b@cpe-075-183-097-107.triad.res.rr.com> From: "Sales" To: "discuss-archive@ietf.org" Subject: Up to 50% Off Clearance Products Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:30:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_C39E_3F0C8DAE.7C530AFB" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_C39E_3F0C8DAE.7C530AFB Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_2C69_4A6C39E3.F0C8DAE7" ------=_NextPart_001_2C69_4A6C39E3.F0C8DAE7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The development of the printing press, however, presented printers with = dilemmas: texts from the fifteenth through to the seventeenth centuries = show many internal inconsistencies, with the same word often being spelled = differently within the same text. Famously, Shakespeare spelled his own = name in many different ways. Additionally, they were tempted to choose from=20 the various spellings based on typographical criterion, e.g. to get = uniform line lengths when assembling type pieces on a composing stick. It = being easier to make one of the lines of type longer than to make the other=20 lines shorter, word lengths tended to standardize on the longer spellings. =20 Starting from NOW you can order =20 Original Viagra and other Genuine Products!=20 Other semantic change includes narrowing and broadening. Narrowing a word = semantically limits its alternative meanings. For example the word 'girl' = once meant 'a young child' and 'hound' (spelt 'hund') meant 'all canines', = and now of course it means a particular type. Examples of words that have = been broadened semantically include 'dog' (which once meant a particular = breed). =20 Get it here: http://www.cabaretsandclubs.info=20 =20 The closest one might come to CS in an interview is when the subject is = interrupted by a close friend or family member, or perhaps must answer the = phone. CS is used in a completely unmonitored environment where the subject=20 feels most comfortable and will use their natural vernacular without = overtly thinking about it. =20 Prices Are TAX Free - Worldwide Shipping - Prices are VAT Free ------=_NextPart_001_2C69_4A6C39E3.F0C8DAE7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Modern historical linguistics dates from the late 18th century and=20 grew out of the earlier discipline of philology, the study of ancient = texts and documents, which goes back to antiquity.

  Starting from NOW you can = order  =20

Original = Viagra and other Genuine Products!=20

The sociolinguist = William Labov famously recorded the change in pronunciation in a relatively=20 short period in the American resort of Martha=92s Vineyard and showed how = this was the result of social tensions and processes.[1] Even in the = relatively short time that broadcast media have been available, we can = observe the difference between the =91marked=92 pronunciation of the = newsreaders of the 1940s and the 1950s and the more neutral, =91unmarked=92=20 pronunciation of today. The greater acceptance and fashionability of = regional accents in the media may also reflect a more democratic, less = formal society.
 
  Get it here: http://www.cabaretsandclubs.info<= FONT=20 color=3D#ff8000 size=3D2> 
 
The development of the printing press, however, presented = printers with dilemmas: texts from the fifteenth through to the seventeenth=20 centuries show many internal inconsistencies, with the same word often = being spelled differently within the same text. Famously, Shakespeare = spelled his own name in many different ways. Additionally, they were = tempted to choose from the various spellings based on typographical = criterion, e.g. to get uniform line lengths when assembling type pieces on = a composing stick. It being easier to make one of the lines of type longer = than to make the other lines shorter, word lengths tended to standardize on=20 the longer spellings.

Prices Are TAX Free - = Worldwide Shipping - Prices are VAT = Free

------=_NextPart_001_2C69_4A6C39E3.F0C8DAE7-- ------=_NextPart_000_C39E_3F0C8DAE.7C530AFB Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="=?iso-8859-1?B?E3F0C8DAE7C530AFB2C6=?=" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgEASABIAAD/7QSqUGhvdG9zaG9wIDMuMAA4QklNA+kAAAAAAHgAAwAAAEgA SAAAAAAC2gIo/+H/4QL5AkUDRwUoA/wAAgAAAEgASAAAAAAC2AIoAAEAAABkAAAAAQADAwMAAAAB Jw8AAQABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAgAGQGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4 QklNA+0AAAAAABAASAAAAAEAAQBIAAAAAQABOEJJTQPzAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAA4QklNBAoAAAAA AAEAADhCSU0nEAAAAAAACgABAAAAAAAAAAI4QklNA/UAAAAAAEgAL2ZmAAEAbGZmAAYAAAAAAAEA L2ZmAAEAoZmaAAYAAAAAAAEAMgAAAAEAWgAAAAYAAAAAAAEANQAAAAEALQAAAAYAAAAAAAE4QklN A/gAAAAAAHAAAP////////////////////////////8D6AAAAAD///////////////////////// ////A+gAAAAA/////////////////////////////wPoAAAAAP////////////////////////// //8D6AAAOEJJTQQAAAAAAAACAAA4QklNBAIAAAAAAAIAADhCSU0ECAAAAAAAEAAAAAEAAAJAAAAC QAAAAAA4QklNBAkAAAAAApkAAAABAAAAgAAAAAEAAAGAAAABgAAAAn0AGAAB/9j/4AAQSkZJRgAB AgEASABIAAD//gAnRmlsZSB3cml0dGVuIGJ5IEFkb2JlIFBob3Rvc2hvcKggNC4wAP/uAA5BZG9i ZQBkgAAAAAH/2wCEAAwICAgJCAwJCQwRCwoLERUPDAwPFRgTExUTExgRDAwMDAwMEQwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwBDQsLDQ4NEA4OEBQODg4UFA4ODg4UEQwMDAwMEREMDAwMDAwR DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDP/AABEIAAEAgAMBIgACEQEDEQH/3QAEAAj/xAE/ AAABBQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAADAAECBAUGBwgJCgsBAAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAEAAgMEBQYHCAkK CxAAAQQBAwIEAgUHBggFAwwzAQACEQMEIRIxBUFRYRMicYEyBhSRobFCIyQVUsFiMzRygtFDByWS U/Dh8WNzNRaisoMmRJNUZEXCo3Q2F9JV4mXys4TD03Xj80YnlKSFtJXE1OT0pbXF1eX1VmZ2hpam tsbW5vY3R1dnd4eXp7fH1+f3EQACAgECBAQDBAUGBwcGBTUBAAIRAyExEgRBUWFxIhMFMoGRFKGx QiPBUtHwMyRi4XKCkkNTFWNzNPElBhaisoMHJjXC0kSTVKMXZEVVNnRl4vKzhMPTdePzRpSkhbSV xNTk9KW1xdXl9VZmdoaWprbG1ub2JzdHV2d3h5ent8f/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/APTqPon4/wAAir5X SQGyn6oSXyukip+qEl8rpJKfqhJfK6SSn6oSXyukkp+qEl8rpJKfqhJfK6SSn6oSXyukkp//2QA4 QklNBAYAAAAAAAcABAAAAAEBAP/+ACdGaWxlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYnkgQWRvYmUgUGhvdG9zaG9wqCA0 LjAA/+4ADkFkb2JlAGQAAAAAAf/bAIQABgQEBwUHCwYGCw4KCAoOEQ4ODg4RFhMTExMTFhEMDAwM DAwRDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAEHCQkTDBMiExMiFA4ODhQUDg4ODhQRDAwM DAwREQwMDAwMDBEMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgAAwZAAwERAAIRAQMR Af/dAAQAyP/EAaIAAAAHAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAQFAwIGAQAHCAkKCwEAAgIDAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAA AQACAwQFBgcICQoLEAACAQMDAgQCBgcDBAIGAnMBAgMRBAAFIRIxQVEGE2EicYEUMpGhBxWxQiPB UtHhMxZi8CRygvElQzRTkqKyY3PCNUQnk6OzNhdUZHTD0uIIJoMJChgZhJRFRqS0VtNVKBry4/PE 1OT0ZXWFlaW1xdXl9WZ2hpamtsbW5vY3R1dnd4eXp7fH1+f3OEhYaHiImKi4yNjo+Ck5SVlpeYmZ qbnJ2en5KjpKWmp6ipqqusra6voRAAICAQIDBQUEBQYECAMDbQEAAhEDBCESMUEFURNhIgZxgZEy obHwFMHR4SNCFVJicvEzJDRDghaSUyWiY7LCB3PSNeJEgxdUkwgJChgZJjZFGidkdFU38qOzwygp 0+PzhJSktMTU5PRldYWVpbXF1eX1RlZmdoaWprbG1ub2R1dnd4eXp7fH1+f3OEhYaHiImKi4yNjo +DlJWWl5iZmpucnZ6fkqOkpaanqKmqq6ytrq+v/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A9N/vv+Lv+SWFhv5/7F37 7/i7/kliu/n/ALFbJ63H/dv0+lTFd/P/AGKj++/y/wDkliu/n/sVa29Tl8fSn7fCn/JPfFIRH/AY GTv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Bi rv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/w GKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3 /AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd /wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFX f8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gM Vd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+ AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8A gMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/ 4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq 7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wAB irv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Bi rv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/w GKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3/AYq7/gMVd/wGKu/4DFXf8Birv8AgMVd/wABirv+AxV3 /AYq/wD/2Q== ------=_NextPart_000_C39E_3F0C8DAE.7C530AFB-- From elaine9@my-deja.com Tue Feb 5 10:45:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 175103A6D4A; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:36:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from 5ac510d1.bb.sky.com (5ac510d1.bb.sky.com [90.197.16.209]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C30828DA41 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:08:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000601c86822$04cb058f$fb2d44ad@akvcawl> From: "lennard hesperos" To: Subject: Cialiis Email from ED. Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:22:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C86822.04C6F4A3" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C86822.04C6F4A3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable headache; indigestion; back pain; muscle aches; flushing; stuffy or = runny nose; or temporary blue tint in vision or difficulty telling the = difference between the colors blue and green (uncommon). FDA has approved new labels for C1alis Ind1an cheeap meedss ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C86822.04C6F4A3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

headache; indigestion; back pain; muscle aches; flushing; stuffy or = runny nose; or temporary blue tint in vision or difficulty telling the = difference between the colors blue and green (uncommon).

FDA has approved = new labels for C1alis Ind1an cheeap meedss

------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C86822.04C6F4A3-- From -updates@7-10.com Tue Feb 5 10:45:53 2008 Return-Path: <-updates@7-10.com> X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 287913A771D; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from host240-113-dynamic.16-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host240-113-dynamic.16-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.16.113.240]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C6B3A7C2A for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:11:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c8679c$07c228c7$03645299@lqeucja> From: "kelbee stamos" <-updates@7-10.com> To: Subject: Wide spectrum of boner enlargers! Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:25:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8679C.07BD1226" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8679C.07BD1226 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your girl can't keep her hands off you! Order ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8679C.07BD1226 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your girl can't keep her hands off you!
Order ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8679C.07BD1226-- From clydetroubling4982079@yahoo.com Tue Feb 5 11:00:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id 4F7A53A68B9; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from host13-213-dynamic.15-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host13-213-dynamic.15-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.15.213.13]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A85D83AA28F; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 05:01:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from 102.126.240.168 by 87.15.213.13; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 07:59:54 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jed Varner" Reply-To: "Jed Varner" To: dhcwg-request@ietf.org Subject: Repl1ca watch is a perfect gift! Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:03:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080131-1, 31/01/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Newest 2008 repl1ca watch3s collection! 15% off in February and huge choose of repl1cas! http://www.oisoiske.com/ From somun@lanier.com Tue Feb 5 11:00:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id CACD53A6F94; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:58:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-76-183-124-128.tx.res.rr.com (cpe-76-183-124-128.tx.res.rr.com [76.183.124.128]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B80F728DA2B for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:07:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ulca ([88.148.93.214]) by cpe-76-183-124-128.tx.res.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:08:57 -0600 Message-ID: <002001c86822$2cec7590$d65d9458@ulca> From: To: Subject: A Is For Attitude Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:08:57 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 The Dance of Love http://98.200.126.101/ From francisc89@ohiohills.com Tue Feb 5 11:01:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@mail.ietf.org Received: by mail.ietf.org (Postfix, from userid 51) id BF1D13A811B; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:37:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from dsl.dynamic81213165236.ttnet.net.tr (unknown [81.213.165.236]) by mail.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6023A9DD5 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 04:06:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000501c867ef$0680a154$ea41eb8e@aqnjaee> From: "bord boaz" To: Subject: V|a_g r-a 100mg x 60 pills = $ 109.95 Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:20:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867EF.067E3D3A" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867EF.067E3D3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you develop dizziness, nausea, or angina (pain, tightness, = discomfort, numbness, or tingling in the chest, arms, neck, or jaw) = during sexual activity, refrain from further sexual activity and notify = your doctor.Viagrra 50mg x 10 piills =3D $ 45.95 want cheap it, get = cheap it from India! ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867EF.067E3D3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you develop dizziness, nausea, or angina (pain, tightness, = discomfort, numbness, or tingling in the chest, arms, neck, or jaw) = during sexual activity, refrain from further sexual activity and notify = your doctor. Viagrra 50mg x = 10 piills =3D $ 45.95 want cheap it, get cheap it from = India! ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C867EF.067E3D3A-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 11:53:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C843A7AD0; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:53:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.624 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.625, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BREtAbHdxhgR; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065DC3A69FA; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:53:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAB33A7A6C for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:53:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TOUZrm-ucrOK for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:53:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD9E3A797C for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:53:01 -0800 (PST) X-Trace: 2619371/mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$MX-ACCEPTED/pipex-infrastructure/62.241.162.32 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 62.241.162.32 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAFrxqkc+8aIg/2dsb2JhbACsOA X-IP-Direction: IN Received: from ranger.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.162.32]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2008 19:54:28 +0000 Received: from pc6 (1Cust202.tnt30.lnd3.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.122.202]) by ranger.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id BC93CE00008C; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:54:27 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <00bd01c869ba$93689f80$0601a8c0@pc6> From: "tom.petch" To: "tom.petch" , References: <035301c867fc$c78a2c80$0601a8c0@pc6> Subject: Re: Test Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:35:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: "tom.petch" List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org In case you were wondering what I was on about, this mailing list is now discuss@ietf.org dropping the reference to apps (which confused me initially Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom.petch" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: Test > Just trying to find where apps-discuss has gone to post-reorganisation. > > Tom Petch > From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 11:54:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA11F3A7AEC; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.838 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, NO_RDNS_DOTCOM_HELO=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RafOtVoPXU5l; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A12A3A79B6; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:54:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E051A3A797C; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:54:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1qY6VuA+X0-l; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout-04.mxes.net (mxout-04.mxes.net [216.86.168.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DD23A713F; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from naturevery-lm.corp.yahoo.com (unknown [207.126.230.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0089BD05A1; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:56:04 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Nottingham To: "tom.petch" In-Reply-To: <00bd01c869ba$93689f80$0601a8c0@pc6> Subject: Re: Test X-Priority: 3 References: <035301c867fc$c78a2c80$0601a8c0@pc6> <00bd01c869ba$93689f80$0601a8c0@pc6> Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:56:04 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Cc: discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org That seems like a bug, not a feature.. BCC:ing ietf-action... On 07/02/2008, at 10:35 AM, tom.petch wrote: > In case you were wondering what I was on about, this mailing list is > now > discuss@ietf.org > dropping the reference to apps (which confused me initially > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tom.petch" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:57 PM > Subject: Test > > >> Just trying to find where apps-discuss has gone to post- >> reorganisation. >> >> Tom Petch >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 12:57:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEB03A78C5; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.033 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.116, BAYES_40=-0.185, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0j2D78FqZ0ZG; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184123A7928; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:57:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E184B3A6E2F for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:57:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OVgMTao4rF3s for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:57:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-mail-106.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-106.bluehost.com [69.89.22.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F23073A7140 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 17245 invoked by uid 0); 7 Feb 2008 20:58:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box7.bluehost.com) (69.89.30.147) by xmail.bluehost.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2008 20:58:04 -0000 Received: from [209.234.108.194] (helo=KingsMountain.com) by box7.bluehost.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JNDoo-0000MN-FQ for discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:58:02 -0700 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 (debian 1:2.7.2-7) with nmh-1.1 Subject: Re: Test To: discuss@ietf.org In-reply-to: Mark Nottingham 's message of Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:56:04 -0800 From: ' =JeffH ' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:58:04 -0800 X-Identified-User: {32571:box7.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:bopbeforesmtp 209.234.108.194 authed with kingsmountain.com} Message-Id: <20080207205633.F23073A7140@core3.amsl.com> X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ' =JeffH ' List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Uh yeah, that's a bug -- the list is for general "applications area" discussions. =JeffH From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 14:07:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88203A7BBA; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:07:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.354 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.356, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_FONT_SIZE_LARGE=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9NAJZp4XJjlu; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D32C3A7B78; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:07:30 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278AD3A79AA for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:07:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QeG1CdvpDBKy for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:07:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7FE3A7BDD for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1937D14274B for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:08:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a0Ram52W6T7H for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:08:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.4.108] (ip20.commerce.net [157.22.41.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3003B142746 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:08:50 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) To: discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: <0CB355F1-4A6A-4AAD-8623-94C0D4AF13FD@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-776628520 From: Lisa Dusseault Subject: PP16: Applying Agile Programming Principles to IETF Protocol Design Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:08:47 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-1-776628520 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed For those attending AAAW next week: This brings the total to 16 =20 papers, with 3 days left. If you haven't read any yet, that's 5 =20 papers per day... Lisa Applying Agile Programming Principles to IETF Protocol Design Tony Hansen Back in the early days of the IETF, many of the protocols were =20 created from the ground up and the documents written afterwards. The =20 mantra =91running code=92 reigned. Many protocols were written this way =20= and became full standards. Over the years, this method of creating protocols made way to follow =20 more closely the waterfall model of software development: a proposal =20 would be made, requirements would be written, and subsequently a =20 design would be written. The protocol would sometimes wither and die =20 at this point, as implementations may or may not be written. =20 Sometimes the protocol would get implemented and be found wanting, =20 requiring revisions and recycling back to proposed standard. =20 Sometimes the protocol would actually make it, but rarely would a =20 protocol get revised in order to make it through to the full standard =20= status.[1] (Concomitant with this trend has been the increased participation in =20 the IETF by =93professional standards people=94 and the decreased =20 participation by engineers.) In the software world, it=92s been found that there are many flaws in =20= the waterfall model, and other models have been proposed that attempt =20= to alleviate those flaws. In particular, some other models are =20 iterative development, incremental development, extreme programming =20 and agile programming. Proponents of the Extreme Programming =20 practices claim that =93exercising these practices=97traditional = software =20 engineering practices taken to so-called =91extreme=92 levels=97leads to = a =20 development process that is more responsive to customer needs =20 ("agile") than traditional methods, while creating software of better =20= quality.=94 [2] Here=92s an overview of agile development methods from Wikipedia:[3] There are many agile development methods; most minimize risk by =20 developing software in short amounts of time. Software developed =20 during one unit of time is referred to as an iteration, which may =20 last from one to four weeks. Each iteration is an entire software =20 project: including planning, requirements analysis, design, coding, =20 testing, and documentation. An iteration may not add enough =20 functionality to warrant releasing the product to market but the goal =20= is to have an available release (without bugs) at the end of each =20 iteration. At the end of each iteration, the team re-evaluates =20 project priorities. Notice the emphasis on quick iteration, with a complete set of =20 development steps occurring in each cycle. Also notice that each =20 cycle does not necessarily end in a finished product. Is there a way that we could make use of similar principles in IETF =20 protocol development? And if so, what benefits can we possibly achieve? What if a working group were to develop protocols in the following =20 order? Work on requirements Work on an area of the design People implement the updated design Test implementations in an interoperation event At the end of each cycle, you then check for these things: Were the implementations able to interoperate? Does the protocol still satisfy the need? Is the design complete? Are there any areas not completed yet? This continues until everyone agrees that all of these criteria have =20 been satisfied. During each iteration, The purpose of the requirements work is to refine the requirements =20 from the previous iteration using the insights gained during the =20 previous implementation effort and interoperation event. The purpose of the design work is to pick off another part of the =20 whole. You do not need to have everything perfect in all areas of the =20= protocol, but instead can focus on a smaller piece of the protocol. The purpose of the implementation step and interoperation event is to =20= gain insights on those portions of the design that were worked on =20 during this cycle, as well as how well things work together. The output of each cycle is an updated version of the requirements =20 document and the design document(s), that is, updated internet drafts. Only when the exit criteria have been fully satisfied do the =20 documents get published as RFCs. Notice that it is conceivable that an entire cycle can be =20 accomplished in the time between IETF meetings. The interoperation =20 events could potentially occur during the IETF meeting week. Note also that There is a renewed focus on running code. At the end of the cycles, in addition to the protocol description, =20 you have multiple interoperable implementations. It is conceivable that protocols developed in this fashion could be =20 considered to be Full Standards right out of the box. The key to making this work within a cycle is focusing on only a =20 portion of the design each time and not trying to solve the world=92s =20= problems each time; focusing in on a smaller piece of the puzzle. A BOF is still useful for determining if there is interest in working =20= on a proposed protocol, and as a way to encourage initial =20 requirements and designs for it. They would prime the pump for the =20 working group cycles. The style of managing a working group would need to be more directed =20 towards forcing a workable set of code at the end of each iteration. =20 It also requires a thought process that allows certain parts of a =20 protocol to be left unfinished while working on other portions of the =20= protocol. This requires a somewhat different set of skills than is =20 commonly found in current working group chairs. It also requires the =20 working group to be in agreement to use this methodology. This methodology is oriented toward Brand new protocols Discrete extensions to existing protocols[4] This methodology is not oriented toward small increments to existing =20 protocols. Summary: I propose running a process experiment. [1] A case in point is the Message Tracking protocol. It had lots of =20 support during the requirements and design phases, but when it came =20 to being implemented after it was published, forget it. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Programming [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development [4] For example, many of the proposed IMAP extensions are of this =20 nature.= --Apple-Mail-1-776628520 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252

For those attending AAAW = next week: This brings the total to 16 papers, with 3 days left.=A0 If = you haven't read any yet, that's 5 papers per day...=A0

Lisa


Applying = Agile Programming Principles to IETF Protocol = Design

Tony Hansen


Back in the early days of = the IETF, many of the protocols were created from the ground up and the = documents written afterwards. The mantra =91running code=92 reigned. = Many protocols were written this way and became full standards.

Over the years, this = method of creating protocols made way to follow more closely the = waterfall model of software development: a proposal would be made, = requirements would be written, and subsequently a design would be = written. The protocol would sometimes wither and die at this point, as = implementations may or may not be written. Sometimes the protocol would = get implemented and be found wanting, requiring revisions and recycling = back to proposed standard. Sometimes the protocol would actually make = it, but rarely would a protocol get revised in order to make it through = to the full standard status.[1]

(Concomitant with this = trend has been the increased participation in the IETF by =93professional = standards people=94 and the decreased participation by engineers.)

In the software world, = it=92s been found that there are many flaws in the waterfall model, and = other models have been proposed that attempt to alleviate those flaws. = In particular, some other models are iterative development, incremental = development, extreme programming and agile programming.=A0 Proponents of the Extreme = Programming =A0practices claim = that =93exercising these practices=97traditional software engineering = practices taken to so-called =91extreme=92 levels=97leads to a = development process that is more responsive to customer needs ("agile") = than traditional methods, while creating software of better quality.=94 = [2]

Here=92s an overview of = agile development methods from Wikipedia:[3]

There are many agile = development methods; most minimize risk by developing software in short = amounts of time. Software developed during one unit of time is referred = to as an iteration, which may last from one to four weeks. Each = iteration is an entire software project: including planning, = requirements analysis, design, coding, testing, and documentation. An = iteration may not add enough functionality to warrant releasing the = product to market but the goal is to have an available release (without = bugs) at the end of each iteration. At the end of each iteration, the = team re-evaluates project priorities.

Notice the emphasis on quick iteration, with = a complete set of development steps occurring in each cycle. Also notice = that each cycle does not necessarily end in a = finished product.

Is there a way that we could make use of = similar principles in IETF protocol development? And if so, what = benefits can we possibly achieve?

What if a working group were to develop = protocols in the following order?

  1. Work on requirements
  2. Work on an area of the design
  3. People implement the updated design
  4. Test implementations in an interoperation event

At the end of each = cycle, you then check for these things:

  1. Were the implementations able to interoperate?
  2. Does the protocol still satisfy the = need?
  3. Is the design complete? Are there = any areas not completed yet?

This continues until everyone agrees that = all of these criteria have been satisfied.

During each iteration,

  1. The purpose of the requirements work is to refine the = requirements from the previous iteration using the insights gained = during the previous implementation effort and interoperation = event.
  2. The purpose of the design work is = to pick off another part of the whole. You do not need to have everything perfect in all areas of the = protocol, but instead can focus on a smaller piece of the = protocol.
  3. The purpose of the implementation step and interoperation = event is to gain insights on those portions of the design that were = worked on during this cycle, as well as how well things work = together.

The = output of each cycle is an updated version of the requirements document = and the design document(s), that is, updated internet drafts.

Only when the exit = criteria have been fully satisfied do the documents get published as = RFCs.

Notice that = it is conceivable that an entire cycle can be accomplished in the time = between IETF meetings. The interoperation events could potentially occur = during the IETF meeting week.

Note also that

  • There is a renewed focus on running code.
  • At the end of the cycles, in addition to the = protocol description, you have multiple interoperable = implementations.
  • It is conceivable that protocols developed in this fashion = could be considered to be Full Standards right out of the = box.

The key = to making this work within a cycle is focusing on only a portion of the = design each time and not trying to solve the world=92s problems each = time; focusing in on a smaller piece of the puzzle.

A BOF is still useful = for determining if there is interest in working on a proposed protocol, = and as a way to encourage initial requirements and designs for it. They = would prime the pump for the working group cycles.

The style of managing a = working group would need to be more directed towards forcing a workable = set of code at the end of each iteration. It also requires a thought = process that allows certain parts of a protocol to be left unfinished = while working on other portions of the protocol. This requires a = somewhat different set of skills than is commonly found in current = working group chairs. It also requires the working group to be in = agreement to use this methodology.

This methodology is oriented toward

  • Brand new protocols
  • Discrete extensions to existing protocols[4]
This methodology is = not oriented toward small increments to existing = protocols.

Summary: I propose running a process = experiment.


[1] A case in = point is the Message Tracking protocol. It had lots of support during = the requirements and design phases, but when it came to being = implemented after it was published, forget = it.
<= DIV style=3D"mso-element:footnote" id=3D"ftn4">
[4] For example, many of the proposed IMAP = extensions are of this nature.
= --Apple-Mail-1-776628520-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 7 23:22:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041003A80C3; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:22:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.272 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YW+Tr9iNh2y7; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35A63A7E9F; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:22:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940F53A771E for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:22:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsPNjt4pOdij for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F0B3A7E9F for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:22:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m187O11k009878; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:24:08 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:23:44 +0200 Received: from esdhcp034233.research.nokia.com ([172.21.34.233]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:23:44 +0200 From: Lars Eggert To: "tom.petch" In-Reply-To: <00bd01c869ba$93689f80$0601a8c0@pc6> Subject: Re: Test X-Priority: 3 References: <035301c867fc$c78a2c80$0601a8c0@pc6> <00bd01c869ba$93689f80$0601a8c0@pc6> Message-Id: <965AFB39-2C26-4650-870D-157F6F6DBE4E@nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:23:43 +0200 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2008 07:23:44.0440 (UTC) FILETIME=[89906380:01C86A23] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On 2008-2-7, at 20:35, ext tom.petch wrote: > In case you were wondering what I was on about, this mailing list is > now > discuss@ietf.org Well, it used to be discuss@apps.ietf.org, and I guess the non- secretariat apps server was retired? Lars From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 8 10:54:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C719B28C446; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:54:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QeX5LZHjasjn; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:54:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9639828C3AB; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:54:38 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03E428C38F for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:54:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Btj1mWyKPdzQ for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5FE28C37F for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8057E142742 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:56:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hW5j7kZussP7 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146A914273D for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:56:02 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) To: discuss@ietf.org Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-851461741 From: Lisa Dusseault Subject: Lisa's Apps Area Activity for Jan 2008 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 10:56:01 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-4-851461741 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Sending separately to working Discuss Apps address Notes A proposed charter for a revived IDN WG in the Apps area will be in circulation shortly, assuming internal review goes well. The ESDS BOF proposal was approved for Philadelphia: directory service proposal geared for supply chain use cases. Document Status and Progress Active Documents: my action - draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri (Proposed Standard): I need to review Stalled, in review, waiting on other: - draft-ietf-sieve-body (Proposed Standard): DISCUSS from Tim Polk needs resolution - waiting for response from Tim - draft-adolf-dvb-urn (Informational): Needs new version to address incomplete information about URN resolution - draft-evain-ebu-urn (Informational): New version is in the I-D queue... can probably approve imminently. - draft-klensin-rfc2821bis (Draft Standard): IETF Last Call is over, author and shepherd are taking some time before deciding how to address last call issues. - draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp: same - draft-creed-ogc-urn (Informational): Waiting for Cullen to clear DISCUSS or revise it - draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto: waiting on new version after IETF last call - draft-snell-atompub-bidi (Proposed Standard): author waiting on some implementation feedback - draft-ietf-imapext-sort (Proposed Standard) : waiting for authors to revise or decide it's ready - draft-wilde-sms-uri (Proposed Standard): Author considering what to do about overlap with tel URIs. Finished Processing -- RFC Ed queue and new RFCs - draft-goodwin-iso-urn (Informational): Approved, waiting until post-holiday processing to enter RFC queue - draft-ietf-sieve-notify ( Proposed Standard): Approved, in RFC Ed queue - draft sjdcox-cgi-urn (Information): Approved, in RFC Ed queue - RFC5228 (Standards Track): Sieve: An Email Filtering Language - RFC5232 (Standards Track): Sieve Email Filtering: Imap4flags Extension - RFC5233 (Standards Track): Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress Extension - RFC5235 (Standards Track): Sieve Email Filtering: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions - RFC5134 (Informational): A Uniform Resource Name Namespace for the EPCglobal Electronic Product Code (EPC) and Related Standards WG Status no info --Apple-Mail-4-851461741 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Sending separately to = working Discuss Apps address


Notes
A proposed = charter for a revived IDN WG in the Apps area will be in circulation = shortly, assuming internal review goes well.
The ESDS BOF proposal was approved for Philadelphia: = directory service proposal geared for supply chain use cases.

Document = Status and Progress

Active Documents: my action
=A0-=A0draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri (Proposed = Standard): I need to review

Stalled, in review, waiting on = other:
=A0-=A0draft-ietf-sieve-body = (Proposed Standard): DISCUSS from Tim Polk needs resolution - waiting = for response from Tim
=A0-=A0draft-adolf-dvb-urn = (Informational): Needs new version to address incomplete information = about URN resolution
=A0-=A0draft-evain-ebu-urn = (Informational): New version is in the I-D queue... can probably approve = imminently.
=A0- = draft-ietf-sieve-notify-xmpp:=A0 same
=A0- = draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto:=A0waiting on new version after IETF last = call
=A0-=A0draft-snell-atompub-bidi = (Proposed Standard): author waiting on some implementation = feedback
=A0-=A0draft-ietf-imapext-sort = (Proposed Standard) : waiting for authors to revise or decide it's = ready
=A0-=A0draft-wilde-sms-uri = (Proposed Standard): Author considering what to do about overlap with = tel URIs.

Finished Processing -- RFC Ed queue and new = RFCs
=A0-=A0draft-goodwin-iso-urn = (Informational): Approved, waiting until post-holiday processing to = enter RFC queue
=A0- draft-ietf-sieve-notify ( = Proposed Standard): Approved, in RFC Ed queue
=A0- draft sjdcox-cgi-urn (Information): Approved, = in RFC Ed queue
=A0- RFC5228 (Standards = Track):=A0Sieve: An Email Filtering Language
=A0- RFC5232 (Standards Track):=A0Sieve Email = Filtering: Imap4flags Extension
=A0- RFC5233 = (Standards Track):=A0Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress = Extension
=A0- RFC5235 (Standards = Track):=A0Sieve Email Filtering: Spamtest and Virustest = Extensions
=A0- RFC5134 (Informational):=A0A = Uniform Resource Name Namespace for=A0the EPCglobal Electronic Product = Code (EPC) and Related Standards

WG Status
=A0no = info
= --Apple-Mail-4-851461741-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 8 11:20:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D46928C480; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:20:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.407, BAYES_50=0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YVnGBkM9dpXH; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:20:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C36428C384; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:20:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E7F28C384 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:20:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RlVX-2s0hEbs for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:20:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291D528C378 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:20:47 -0800 (PST) X-Trace: 36959525/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$MX-ACCEPTED/pipex-infrastructure/62.241.163.7 X-SBRS: None X-RemoteIP: 62.241.163.7 X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com X-IP-BHB: Once X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CACE7rEc+8aMH/2dsb2JhbABCiiCiCA X-IP-Direction: IN Received: from blaster.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.163.7]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2008 19:22:14 +0000 Received: from pc6 (1Cust171.tnt3.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.132.171]) by blaster.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B859BE0000AD; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 19:22:08 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <002101c86a7f$3b9b8d60$0601a8c0@pc6> From: "tom.petch" To: "Lars Eggert" References: <035301c867fc$c78a2c80$0601a8c0@pc6> <00bd01c869ba$93689f80$0601a8c0@pc6> <965AFB39-2C26-4650-870D-157F6F6DBE4E@nokia.com> Subject: Re: Test Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:22:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Cc: discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: "tom.petch" List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Part of the migration announcement was that there was to be a signficant flattening of the namespace, so for 'foo.ietf.org' to become 'ietf.org' was to be expected, but I did expect the various 'foo' to become part of the local part. On the other hand, being 'discuss@ietf.org' could be said to reflect the importance of apps among the various IETF areas:-) Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lars Eggert" To: "tom.petch" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 8:23 AM Subject: Re: Test > On 2008-2-7, at 20:35, ext tom.petch wrote: > > In case you were wondering what I was on about, this mailing list is > > now > > discuss@ietf.org > > Well, it used to be discuss@apps.ietf.org, and I guess the non- > secretariat apps server was retired? > > Lars From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 8 15:59:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E20628C345; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:59:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.187 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ty8TVL4rVBv9; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:59:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D883A7749; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:59:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E8428C104 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:59:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88Sw2MIjrAhG for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.43.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E803A74D4 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m19010oQ023926 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:01:01 GMT Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m19010dr016776 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:01:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m19010do015431 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:01:00 -0600 (CST) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id m19010DB015430 for discuss@ietf.org; Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:01:00 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 18:01:00 -0600 From: Nicolas Williams To: discuss@ietf.org Subject: NW-PP18 Web Authentication, TLS and phishing Message-ID: <20080209000059.GI15878@Sun.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org [Lisa: feel free to re-post with a proper PP number.] Abstract Cryptographic user and server authentication, and cryptographic transport protection are requirements for dealing with modern threat models for the Internet. Phish attacks aim to steal credentials, but if not credentials, then man-in-the-middle (MITM) access. It is important to ensure that user/service authentication and cryptographic transport protection are cryptographically bound so as to avoid MITM attacks. Implied, of course, if authentication stronger than the current reigning champion: username&password-over-TLS (which does not, and cannot support channel binding). Additionally, phishing opportunities must be limited, such as by using authentication tokens that cannot be captured and played to other relying parties. One goal is to push phishing opportunities to the edge of the system: enrolment. "Nigeria scam" type phishing is out of scope for this paper, but phishing attacks where a user is directed to a malicious site (e.g., via spam e-mail) or where the user accidentally goes to a malicious site (e.g., via typo-squatting) are in scope. Introduction Current practice for web authentication follows this pattern: - The client is directed (or re-directed) to an https URL using... - ...TLS with server certificate and anonymous client - The page at the https URL contains an HTML form with username and password text input fields; the form is [usually] POSTed via an https URL - When the browser posts said form the server sets a protected [and, where encryption is not required, an unprotected] cookie - Subsequent HTTP requests include said cookie, which contains or points to server-side state indicating who the user is and that they are authenticated Web applications generally involve many HTTP requests, using HTTP as a sort of reliable datagram transport. Usually multiple TCP connections are used, with little multiplexing of HTTP requests per-TCP connection. A few observations: - Username-and-password-over-TLS authentication is not very strong - Stealing usernames and passwords is a common phish attack goal, as those provide the access that attackers desire (e.g., to one's bank accounts) - Server certificates are only as good as the CAs that issue them - There are a multitude of CAs, and browsers ship with large trust anchor sets - There is no true global PKI - Server certificates are easy to obtain for typo and confusable versions of legitimate domain names - It is easy to obtain typo and confusable versions of legitimate domain names; DNSSEC will not change this - That said, cookies are a fine mechanism for associating a multitude of HTTP requests with a given application session - The use of cookies reduces the need for potentially expensive authentication events - If one think of a reliable datagram transport with built-in key exchange, authentication and encryption, then one can see that a protected cookie is a perfectly reasonable method of associating datagrams with sessions, thus reducing the number of authentication events needed per-session (there is plenty of precedent for this too) - So we need: better authentication of users and, possibly, servers - And we need to make sure that this authentication is strongly bound to the transport-layer encryption (TLS, in this case) - Server authentication is already so bound - Cryptographic binding of user and server authentication, and, direct or indirect cryptographic binding of authentication to key exchange and session cryptographic protection is required to detect MITMs I've been told several times that web authentication should happen at the application layer. Often the rationale is that developers don't like browsers' HTTP authentication dialogs, that they prefer to use HTML forms so that they can have more control over the authentication UI. At the same time every one seems to agree that sending username and password over TLS is a big part of the phishing problem, that we need better authentication methods. Arguments for why user authentication belongs in the application layer, even when using something other than plain username&password, can also be made. For example: o Authentication at the application layer allows application control over when it occurs, and application control over such UI elements as are reasonable to put in the hands of the application o Faster prototyping and more competition are possible if user authentication takes place at the application layer; otherwise the transport, browser and server stacks need to be re-deployed for authentication mechanism that anyone invents. On the other hand, one might argue that the difficulty of deploying new authentication mechanisms is a defense against bad authentication mechanisms, and that this is a good thing. Channel Binding The rest of this document assumes reader familiarity with the concept of channel binding [RFC5056]. Briefly, channel binding is a concept, dating to the early 1990s, where authentication at one layer is cryptographically bound to a secure channel (e.g., a TLS session, or a set of TLS sessions), such that no man-in-the-middle may exist when authentication with channel binding succeeds. Channel binding functions just like the binding between authentication and key exchange that protocols like IKE, TLS and SSHv2 already do, but with authentication removed to a higher network layer, usually the application layer. Internet and Phishing Threat Model Prior to the advent of phishing we have worried against a variety of active and passive attacks on Internet protocols, particularly active off-path attackers. But the rise of open wireless networks and the rise of phishing mean that we must take passive attacks (e.g., eavesdropping) and active attacks (e.g., server impersonation, MITM attacks) more seriously. A modern threat model for web applications should include: - passive attackers (e.g., eavesdroppers on open wireless networks) - active off-path attackers (e.g., sender spoofing) - active on-path attackers (e.g., MITMs) - active mis-direction attacks (phish attacks) - keeping in mind that phishers are after resources protected by the user credentials that they usually try to steal Federation Until recently users needed a username and password for every site and/or application that they used. This multiplicity of passwords is difficult to manage, and quite frustrating to users. Thus, users often use the same username and password across many unrelated sites, which makes theft of their credentials all the more dangerous to the users. Merely replacing usernames and passwords with stronger authentication methods may not reduce the number of identities that users must manage, but it does present the opportunity to do so. Assuming stronger authentication methods, one way to reduce the number of identities per-user is to allow one identity and/or related authentication infrastructure to be used for many sites. Credential theft in such a model is mitigated by making it difficult for attackers [who we assume do not have local access to the client] to steal the credentials; theft of authentication tokens should not be sufficient for impersonating the user. Implied in this is trust transitivity. Identity federation supposes islands of trust (as opposed to a global PKI, or other authentication infrastructure). Trust is no inherently transitive, and breaks down when trusted partners turn out to not be trustworthy, or as the trust chains become too long (does one trust a story related by a friend who heard it from a cousin who heard it from a friend who...?). Transitive trust can be implemented badly. For example, if "bearer token," asserting that the possessor is authenticated as some identity, can be presented to any relying party that participates in the associated identity federation, then theft of such a token can lead to impersonation of the user. On the other hand, small islands of trust present the opportunity for white and black listing by the identity providers, which can be used to help protect users from illegitimate sites. Rapid Prototyping of Web Authentication Various extensions to the JavaScript host environment on browsers could greatly facilitate the development and deployment of application-layer authentication for web applications. For example: - JavaScript bindings for existing authentication frameworks, such as SASL and the GSS-API (see UI note below) - JavaScript bindings for PKCS#11 and CMS/XMLdsig/XMLenc (see UI note below) - SAML APIs and JavaScript bindings for them (see UI note below) - extensions to the XmlHttpRequest object to allow applications to obtain the channel binding data for the request's TLS session Consider, with JavaScript bindings for PKCS#11. Developers could use low-level cryptographic primitives to implement PKI and ad-hoc public key user authentication. Frameworks like SASL and the GSS-API are probably more appropriate (as the GSS-API does, or SASL soon will, support channel binding already). Of course, application access to authentication credentials through such scripting interfaces MUST be suitably limited. For example, the application MUST NOT be able to use such interfaces to generate authentication messages suitable for impersonating the user to other services. This can be done, in the case of SASL and GSS-API interfaces, by not allowing the application to control the name of the target service. Additionally, user control, over what credentials a given application can access through such interfaces, MUST be provided (for example, a one-time dialog where the user can select an identity/credential to authenticate to a service as). In the case of a PKCS#11 interface, it is important to understand that not much control can be provided over what the application encrypts or signs, but control can be provided over what keys it can access. A PKCS#11 interface would probably put too much power in the hands of the application, for the risk is probably great that keys may be made available through it which are sensitive and which the user does not understand that how to limit. However, a PKCS#11 interface would allow for rapid prototyping. Enrolment Interfaces for adding identities and raw credentials for use with JavaScript interfaces to SASL, the GSS-API and/or SAML would be very, very useful. Ideally cryptographic user authentication methods, channel binding and small trust islands (as small as one per-{user, service}) will allow us to significantly reduce the possibility of phishing attacks at all but the time when the user enrols their identity/credentials with an identity provider and/or service. We may not be able to exclude phishing attacks on enrolment, but because enrolment is a rare event the opportunities for phishing would still be greatly reduced, to the point where education may be sufficient to make phishing very rare. UIs, User Expectations and User Education Even with significant improvements in web authentication it will still be possible for phish attacks to succeed where users don't or can't know about how a web page is protected. Experience tells us, too, that users do not look at, nor know what to do with, server certificates. We need UI elements that are simple and comprehensible by most users, and which nonetheless convey critical security information. Perhaps the simplest piece of information that can be shown to the user, and which conveys the most important information, is the identity that was used to authenticate to a given service. This assertion is predicated on having channel binding and either ad-hoc per-{user, service} credentials or sufficiently small trust islands (federations), for between the name of a service and the user's identity, the user has enough information to decide whether the session is legitimate. Of course, if a user can be tricked into enrolling to a malicious site such that: a) the site's name is similar to that of legitimate sites, and b) the user's identity is similar to that which would be used at legitimate sites, then the user can fail to realize when they are being phished. In the end phishing attacks are an on-line con-game. As with con-games in the off-line world, human gullibility is the key, and no technology can completely make up for human gullibility. By deploying better web authentication we may be able to greatly reduce phishing opportunities, but most likely we cannot prevent phishing altogether. A web authentication scheme that requires phishers to attack enrolment limits the opportunity for phishing to the point where user education may have a chance. Authentication Technologies A number of authentication methods are possible that can support channel binding: - methods based on PK crypto (e.g., user certs, bare user public keys, ala SSH) - methods based on pre-shared symmetric keys - methods based on passwords (e.g., challenge/response methods like DIGEST-MD5) - methods based on trusted key distribution (e.g., Kerberos V) - combinations of the above Radia Perlman and Charlie Kaufman have written a paper on "User-centric PKI" which recommends the use of bare public keys to identify users and the corresponding private keys to authenticate them -- this is very similar to SSH publickey authentication. Using certificates (which they also recommend as a supported mechanism) allows for identity federation, effectively. Passwords, of course, are the only truly portable authentication credential, at least until smartcards and smartcard readers are ubiquitous. So protocols like SACRED are recommended as a method of accessing private keys when local tokens are not available. Privacy Protection Considerations and Channel Binding Letting identity providers (IdPs) know what service the user wants to authenticate to allows the IdPs to perform white/blacklisting, and it allows user authentication to be bound to the service name at the IdP -- a useful property, in that it indirectly ensures channel binding. However, it also allows IdPs to know what services the user is accessing (and when). User authentication methods that involve an IdP but which do not involve sharing the names of the users' peers with the IdP are clearly feasible, but it is crucial, in such cases, to get channel binding right in the application protocol (or TLS, if user authentication is being done in TLS). Recommendations for Web Authentication o Whether the future of web authentication entails application-layer user authentication, or whether user authentication actually moves into the TLS layer, the ability to detect MITM attacks is REQUIRED. For example, sending a "bearer token" which can be presented to many different relying parties is dangerous: there is no binding to a particular session, therefore theft of such a token can enable the thief to impersonate the authenticated user to other sites/ applications. All the thief needs to do is fool the user into sending it the bearer token and then the thief can impersonate the user to any site that would accept that token. o Authentication messages MUST NOT be replay-able in other sessions (see above) to other services. o Use of plain username-and-password-over-TLS is NOT RECOMMENDED; in fact, since it does not meet the above requirements, it MUST NOT be used. Use of plain username-and-password-over-TLS to obtain other forms of credentials, however, MAY be used. o If user authentication moves to the transport layer (e.g., TLS), and if its computational and/or bandwidth cost be significant, then a method SHOULD be provided for a) controlling when TLS user authentication is used, b) binding occasional user authentication to a multiplicity of TLS sessions. o Browser UIs MUST display the user's identity, used to authenticate to a given site, as prominently as the name of the site and its URL, whenever the authentication method used is: a) cryptographic (not plain username&password), b) bound to the TLS sessions that make up the application session. [This section is left unfinished due to lack of time. RFC2119-like terminology is used.] From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sun Feb 10 12:19:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16CAB3A695D; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:19:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GkFDdOwEYLPt; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:19:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC1C3A696C; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:18:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451BA3A696A for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:18:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9KMCOfxg7EQU for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:18:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-mail-10.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-10.bluehost.com [69.89.17.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 41D5E3A63EC for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 22383 invoked by uid 0); 10 Feb 2008 20:19:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box7.bluehost.com) (69.89.30.147) by mailproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2008 20:19:00 -0000 Received: from c-98-207-19-194.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([98.207.19.194] helo=KingsMountain.com) by box7.bluehost.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JOIdf-0001cs-4S; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:18:59 -0700 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 (debian 1:2.7.2-7) with nmh-1.1 Subject: pp7: draft-hodges-server-ident-check-00.txt To: discuss@ietf.org From: ' =JeffH ' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:19:08 -0800 X-Identified-User: {32571:box7.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:bopbeforesmtp 98.207.19.194 authed with kingsmountain.com} Message-Id: <20080210201734.41D5E3A63EC@core3.amsl.com> Cc: rlmorgan@washington.edu X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: discuss@ietf.org List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Here's an I-D fresh off the press wrt pp7 - "Server Identity Check". I've also submitted it to the I-D repository. =JeffH ------ None J. Hodges Internet-Draft NeuStar Expires: August 13, 2008 R. Morgan Internet2 February 10, 2008 Generic Server Identity Check draft-hodges-server-ident-check-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 Abstract This document specifies the how an entity establishing a TLS connection, or other PKI-based interaction, with a server should verify the server identity. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Server Identity Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Comparison of DNS Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Comparison of IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Comparison of Other subjectName Types . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 1. Introduction Establishing a TLS-based connection with a server, or any other sort of client-server PKI-based interaction, entails, on the part of the client, verifying the "server's identity" based upon information presented by the server in its certificate correlated with the information about the server ensconced in the Domain Name System (DNS). Presently, various Internet-Drafts utilizing TLS or prescribing PKI- based interactions, either prescribe their own server identity check, or reference [RFC4513] or its predecesor, [RFC2830]. [there may be other I-Ds referencing other specs that describe the equivalent of server identity checks] Converging our present understanding of this critical aspect of PKI- based interactions is desirable in that it will hopefully encourage more coherence in specifications and actual implementations thereof, as well as ease the burden of crafting new specifications because this aspect has been factored out and separately standardized. This document extracts the "server identity check" section from [RFC4513], with the goal of becoming a stand-alone BCP document appropriately referenceable by I-Ds and thus RFCs. Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 3. Server Identity Check In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, the client MUST verify the server's identity (as presented in the server's Certificate message). In this section, the client's understanding of the server's identity (typically the identity used to establish the transport connection) is called the "reference identity". The client may map the reference identity to a different type prior to performing a comparison. Mappings may be performed for all available subjectAltName types to which the reference identity can be mapped; however, the reference identity should only be mapped to types for which the mapping is either inherently secure (e.g., extracting the DNS name from a URI to compare with a subjectAltName of type dNSName) or for which the mapping is performed in a secure manner (e.g., using DNSSEC, or using user- or admin-configured host- to-address/address-to-host lookup tables). The server's identity may also be verified by comparing the reference identity to the Common Name (CN) [RFC4519] value in the leaf Relative Distinguished Name (RDN) of the subjectName field of the server's certificate. This comparison is performed using the rules for comparison of DNS names in Section 3.1.3.1, below, with the exception that no wildcard matching is allowed. Although the use of the Common Name value is existing practice, it is deprecated, and Certification Authorities are encouraged to provide subjectAltName values instead. Note that the TLS implementation may represent DNs in certificates according to X.500 or other conventions. For example, some X.500 implementations order the RDNs in a DN using a left-to-right (most significant to least significant) convention instead of LDAP's right- to-left convention. If the server identity check fails, user-oriented clients SHOULD either notify the user (clients may give the user the opportunity to continue with the LDAP session in this case) or close the transport connection and indicate that the server's identity is suspect. Automated clients SHOULD close the transport connection and then return or log an error indicating that the server's identity is suspect or both. Beyond the server identity check described in this section, clients should be prepared to do further checking to ensure that the server is authorized to provide the service it is requested to provide. The client may need to make use of local policy information in making this determination. Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 3.1. Comparison of DNS Names If the reference identity is an internationalized domain name, conforming implementations MUST convert it to the ASCII Compatible Encoding (ACE) format as specified in Section 4 of RFC 3490 [RFC3490] before comparison with subjectAltName values of type dNSName. Specifically, conforming implementations MUST perform the conversion operation specified in Section 4 of RFC 3490 as follows: o in step 1, the domain name SHALL be considered a "stored string"; o in step 3, set the flag called "UseSTD3ASCIIRules"; o in step 4, process each label with the "ToASCII" operation; and o in step 5, change all label separators to U+002E (full stop). After performing the "to-ASCII" conversion, the DNS labels and names MUST be compared for equality according to the rules specified in Section 3 of RFC3490. The '*' (ASCII 42) wildcard character is allowed in subjectAltName values of type dNSName, and then only as the left-most (least significant) DNS label in that value. This wildcard matches any left-most DNS label in the server name. That is, the subject *.example.com matches the server names a.example.com and b.example.com, but does not match example.com or a.b.example.com. 3.2. Comparison of IP Addresses When the reference identity is an IP address, the identity MUST be converted to the "network byte order" octet string representation [RFC791][RFC2460]. For IP Version 4, as specified in RFC 791, the octet string will contain exactly four octets. For IP Version 6, as specified in RFC 2460, the octet string will contain exactly sixteen octets. This octet string is then compared against subjectAltName values of type iPAddress. A match occurs if the reference identity octet string and value octet strings are identical. 3.3. Comparison of Other subjectName Types Client implementations MAY support matching against subjectAltName values of other types as described in other documents. Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 4. References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC2830] Hodges, J., Morgan, R., and M. Wahl, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security", RFC 2830, May 2000. [RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003. [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006. [RFC4513] Harrison, R., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms", RFC 4513, June 2006. Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 Authors' Addresses Jeff Hodges NeuStar 2000 Broadway Street Redwood City, CA 94063 US Email: Jeff.Hodges@neustar.biz RL 'Bob' Morgan UWashington/Internet2 Seattle, WA US Email: rlmorgan@washington.edu Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Server Ident Check February 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Hodges & Morgan Expires August 13, 2008 [Page 9] --- end From lorie@fujitsu.com Mon Feb 11 07:41:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18143A6AEF for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:41:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, DRUGS_ERECTILE=1, DRUGS_ERECTILE_OBFU=1.5, FB_CIALIS_LEO3=3.899, FUZZY_CPILL=0.001, GB_PHARMACY=1, HELO_DYNAMIC_DIALIN=3.384, HELO_EQ_DIP_DIALIN=1.573, HOST_EQ_DIP_TDIAL=2.144, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, MANGLED_CIALIS=2.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_OBFU_PART_CIA=1.666, SARE_OBFU_PART_IAL=1.666, SUBJECT_DRUG_GAP_C=0.003, SUBJ_BUY=0.001, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZVmEMc0IDgg for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:41:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from p508D636F.dip.t-dialin.net (p508D636F.dip.t-dialin.net [80.141.99.111]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C9A3A6C68 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:39:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000801c86cc4$027458fb$20573eb6@ttitjo> From: "dennet jerric" To: Subject: BUY CIIALIS GENERIC, order ciialis Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:52:28 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C86CC4.026FB4A1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C86CC4.026FB4A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable nitrates are also found in some recreational drugs such as amyl nitrate = or nitrite ("poppers"); or C1ALIS - From a pharmacy that believes in providing excellent services = and the cheapest pri_ces Cheap ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C86CC4.026FB4A1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

nitrates are also found in some recreational drugs such as amyl = nitrate or nitrite ("poppers"); or

C1ALIS - From a = pharmacy that believes in providing excellent services and the cheapest = pri_ces Cheap

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C86CC4.026FB4A1-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 11 18:41:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566E728CB8D; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:41:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZFz6GfdyO+ip; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:41:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294DD3A6E01; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:41:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFB828C734 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:41:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id byvhO2Fr+4Gr for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-mail-116.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-116.bluehost.com [69.89.22.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D6C693A6E01 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:41:32 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 4381 invoked by uid 0); 12 Feb 2008 01:01:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box7.bluehost.com) (69.89.30.147) by xmail.bluehost.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2008 01:01:15 -0000 Received: from [216.239.45.19] (helo=KingsMountain.com) by box7.bluehost.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JOjWL-0003Rm-OA for discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:01:14 -0700 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 (debian 1:2.7.2-7) with nmh-1.1 Subject: wrt: PP8 PP9: synchron and pub/sub and push/pull To: Apps Discuss In-reply-to: Lisa Dusseault 's message of Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:01:51 -0800 From: ' =JeffH ' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:01:19 -0800 X-Identified-User: {32571:box7.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:bopbeforesmtp 216.239.45.19 authed with kingsmountain.com} Message-Id: <20080212024132.D6C693A6E01@core3.amsl.com> X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ' =JeffH ' List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org In interest of due diligence, folks discussing "synchronization" protocols (and pub/sub and push/pull) ought to review (at least).. Xerox PARC's Bayou Project http://www2.parc.com/csl/projects/bayou/ SyncML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SyncML =JeffH From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 14 16:07:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AF228D00C; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:07:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.521 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.642, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Tiqn-pm2UYR; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:07:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642EB3A690E; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:07:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7D73A698E for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:07:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nW-bf6DX-y97 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC5B3A690E for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) id <0JW900901713XH@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0JW90093B71370@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:07:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:08:14 -0500 From: James Galvin Subject: this is a test To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sorry to burden the list with this but I need to do this to make sure it really does work end to end. Jim From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 15 08:40:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E622C28D260; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:40:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWSfX9l7YBA6; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B636D3A6AAE; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:40:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90963A6AAE for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:40:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1dKS7lUk6fM for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B053A6874 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:40:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) id <0JWA00901GXLPY@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:39:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0JWA007MMGXL0G@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:39:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:40:14 -0500 From: James Galvin Subject: what lists are in apps.ietf.org? To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org First let me apologize that email to apps.ietf.org stopped working. It certainly was not planned that way. Worse, there was an early ticket from Dave Crocker pointing out there was an issue but even this got overlooked in the stream of issues that cried out for attention. Unfortunately, since apps.ietf.org is a delegated domain, the default action for tickets of this type was to defer to those third parties. This actually worked until we looked closer at what was going on with email and realized that the DNS configuration was part of the problem. apps.ietf.org was unique in this respect compared to all the other "third party domains". Sorry, but that contributed to the oversight. I could explain all this in way too much detail but, frankly, it would sound like an excuse and it's really not important right now. The problem now is that there is no information as to what mailing lists are in the apps.ietf.org domain. I am aware of the following three: discuss urn-nid w3c-policy The discuss list now works and the other two will work soon (today). There is a mapping rule that has to be added to the email system to make things work the way you would expect given the configuration of apps.ietf.org. If you own a list in the apps.ietf.org domain would you please self-declare by sending a message to me and I'll make sure the mapping gets entered and your list starts working again. Thanks, Jim From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 18 03:43:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DA428C34F; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.067 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.139, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_NJABL_RELAY=2.696] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J3k5P12i2Ytz; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96D928C327; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:44 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4175728C349 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ZctpPYdny55 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1E328C326 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:43:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id m1IBhb7M010585 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:43:37 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.206.133) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 1da5_be39e7de_de16_11dc_8a84_0014221fa3c9; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:43:37 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.210.1]:33208) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:39:14 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:39:31 +0900 To: discuss@ietf.org From: Martin Duerst Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Based on some earlier discussion on this list and some encouragement by Chris, Tim Bray and myself wrote a proposal for HTTP namespace URI registration with IANA. Comments appreciated. Regards, Martin. >To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >Subject: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt >Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:30:01 -0800 (PST) >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : HTTP-based IETF Namespace URIs at IANA > Author(s) : M. Duerst, T. Bray > Filename : draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2008-02-18 > >This document creates a registry and defines a procedure to allow >IETF specifications to register XML Namespace Names with IANA which >are HTTP URIs and thus potentially useful for looking up information >about the namespace. > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt > >To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to >i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of >the message. >You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce >to change your subscription settings. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the >username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After >logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt". > >A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > >Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. >In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt". > >NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > >Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >Internet-Draft. > >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-ID: <2008-02-18032741.I-D@ietf.org> > >ENCODING mime >FILE /internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt > > > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 18 10:10:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC8C3A6D4A; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:10:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id reQFL6CF+Qpl; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:10:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8071228C22B; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:10:08 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2654D3A6C5D for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:10:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qDKGhaCfwsQ1 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:10:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A3028C350 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:09:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657AB142774; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:09:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHTkMEPSq5D3; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:09:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA17414274D; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:09:29 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--434819080 Message-Id: <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> From: Lisa Dusseault Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:09:23 -0800 To: IANA , Thomas Narten , Mark Nottingham X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Cc: Tim Bray , Apps Discuss X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-2--434819080 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi, I'm adding IANA and Thomas Narten (author of IANA considerations docs) to this thread to get early IANA feedback about this idea. It may well be a good idea, but we definitely want to think it through: - A registry for HTTP URLs in the IANA domain ... including a HTML or XML document hosted by IANA on its Website at the location specified in the registered URL ... which means that end-users and developers will use these URIs, perhaps very frequently What do we know about the W3 experience hosting namespace URIs with actual documents at the URIs? I've been hearing rumours lately about something like this causing expensive levels of traffic, but I can't recall the details. Lisa Begin forwarded message: > From: Martin Duerst > Date: February 18, 2008 3:39:31 AM PST > To: discuss@ietf.org > Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt > > Based on some earlier discussion on this list and some encouragement > by Chris, Tim Bray and myself wrote a proposal for HTTP namespace > URI registration with IANA. Comments appreciated. > > Regards, Martin. > >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org >> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org >> Subject: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt >> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:30:01 -0800 (PST) > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> >> Title : HTTP-based IETF Namespace URIs at IANA >> Author(s) : M. Duerst, T. Bray >> Filename : draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt >> Pages : 8 >> Date : 2008-02-18 >> >> This document creates a registry and defines a procedure to allow >> IETF specifications to register XML Namespace Names with IANA which >> are HTTP URIs and thus potentially useful for looking up information >> about the namespace. >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana- >> namespace-00.txt >> >> To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to >> i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the >> body of >> the message. >> You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D- >> announce >> to change your subscription settings. >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the >> username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After >> logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then >> "get draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt". >> >> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in >> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >> >> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. >> >> Send a message to: >> mailserv@ietf.org. >> In the body type: >> "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt". >> >> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in >> MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this >> feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" >> command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or >> a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail >> readers >> exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with >> "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split >> up into multiple messages), so check your local >> documentation on >> how to manipulate these messages. >> >> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader >> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the >> Internet-Draft. >> >> Content-Type: text/plain >> Content-ID: <2008-02-18032741.I-D@ietf.org> >> >> ENCODING mime >> FILE /internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt >> >> >> > namespace-00.txt> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp > mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp > --Apple-Mail-2--434819080 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi,

I'm adding IANA and Thomas = Narten (author of IANA considerations docs) to this thread to get early = IANA feedback about this idea.=A0 It may well be a good idea, but we = definitely want to think it through:

=A0- A registry for HTTP = URLs in the IANA domain
=A0 =A0... including a HTML or XML = document hosted by IANA on its Website at the location specified in the = registered URL
=A0 ... which means that end-users and = developers will use these URIs, perhaps very frequently

What do we know about the = W3 experience hosting namespace URIs with actual documents at the URIs?=A0= I've been hearing rumours lately about something like this causing = expensive levels of traffic, but I can't recall the = details.

Lisa

Begin = forwarded message:

From: = Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: February 18, 2008 3:39:31 AM = PST
Subject: = Fwd: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt=A0

Based = on some earlier discussion on this list and some encouragement
by Chris, Tim Bray and myself wrote a proposal for = HTTP namespace
URI registration with IANA. = Comments appreciated.
Regards, =A0 Martin.

From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
Subject: I-D = Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt=A0
Date: = Mon, 18 Feb 2008 03:30:01 -0800 (PST)

A New Internet-Draft is = available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

=A0 =A0 =A0 Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : HTTP-based = IETF Namespace URIs at IANA
=A0 =A0 =A0 Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : M. Duerst, T. = Bray
=A0 =A0 =A0 Filename=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : = draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt
=A0 =A0 =A0 Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 8
=A0 =A0 =A0 = Date=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = : 2008-02-18
This document creates a registry = and defines a procedure to allow
IETF = specifications to register XML Namespace Names with IANA which
are HTTP URIs and thus potentially useful for = looking up information
about the = namespace.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, = send a message to
i-d-announce-request@ietf.or= g with the word unsubscribe in the body of=A0
the = message.
to = change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also = available by anonymous FTP. Login with the=A0
username = "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After=A0
logging = in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
=A0 =A0 =A0 "get = draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts = directories can be found in
Internet-Drafts can also be = obtained by e-mail.
Send a message to:
=A0 =A0 =A0 = mailserv@ietf.org.
In the body type:
=A0 =A0 =A0 "FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt".

NOTE: = =A0 The mail server at = ietf.org can return the document in
=A0 =A0 =A0 MIME-encoded form by = using the "mpack" utility.=A0 = To use this
=A0 =A0 =A0 feature, insert the = command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
=A0 =A0 =A0 command.=A0 To decode the response(s), = you will need "munpack" or
=A0 =A0 =A0 a MIME-compliant mail = reader.=A0 Different = MIME-compliant mail readers
=A0 =A0 =A0 exhibit different = behavior, especially when dealing with
=A0 =A0 =A0 "multipart" MIME = messages (i.e. documents which have been split
=A0 =A0 =A0 = up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation = on
=A0 =A0 =A0= how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the = data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII = version of the
Internet-Draft.


ENCODING mime
FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt


I-D-Announce mailing list


#-#-#=A0 Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. = Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

=

= --Apple-Mail-2--434819080-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 18 10:18:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC90E28C44B; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.811, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C5K1oJIavgKu; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4F328C342; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:21 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4E228C342 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ag3J6l0ouN6U for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0FC28C22B for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m16so2850859waf.20 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.177.1 with SMTP id z1mr1171551wae.7.1203358696053; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.159.16 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <517bf110802181018y258276c9u9d866bebecd44a68@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0800 From: "Tim Bray" To: "Lisa Dusseault" Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt In-Reply-To: <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9eefae625e31a870 Cc: Thomas Narten , Tim Bray , Mark Nottingham , IANA , Apps Discuss X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: tbray@textuality.com List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Feb 18, 2008 10:09 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > What do we know about the W3 experience hosting namespace URIs with actual > documents at the URIs? I've been hearing rumours lately about something > like this causing expensive levels of traffic, but I can't recall the > details. Yeah, it's true and it's potentially a problem. In the case of the W3C it's not XML namespace URIs, it's XML DTD system identifiers in the X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE613A6B73; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:01:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h1MqDLtZkn3j; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8644628C554; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:01:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308F33A6D69 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:01:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUr7v0LPtu4g for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EFF928C545 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2008 19:01:22 -0000 Received: from p508FAD0F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.178.22]) [80.143.173.15] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 18 Feb 2008 20:01:22 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+LWQwOSe+LVQSuZkmXvJh+zS0FgVka7lKVHk2ZbD 4Eqqnb3eDR9VbL Message-ID: <47B9D5F5.3020808@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:01:09 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Thomas Narten , Tim Bray , Mark Nottingham , IANA , Apps Discuss X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Lisa Dusseault wrote: > Hi, > > I'm adding IANA and Thomas Narten (author of IANA considerations docs) > to this thread to get early IANA feedback about this idea. It may well > be a good idea, but we definitely want to think it through: > > - A registry for HTTP URLs in the IANA domain > ... including a HTML or XML document hosted by IANA on its Website at > the location specified in the registered URL > ... which means that end-users and developers will use these URIs, > perhaps very frequently > > What do we know about the W3 experience hosting namespace URIs with > actual documents at the URIs? I've been hearing rumours lately about > something like this causing expensive levels of traffic, but I can't > recall the details. > ... That was about DTDs (fetched by XML parsers), not namespace documents. BR, Julian From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 18 12:31:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E22228C63A; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:31:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kVc37EEyex0X; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:31:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E0128C67B; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:28:12 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FFE28C675 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:28:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9aUYutVbLXji for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:28:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net (mxout-03.mxes.net [216.86.168.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED8728C6F2 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [216.145.54.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB8723E4B0; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:22:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <9A910F0F-7930-4D84-A0A8-46FE86A6618E@mnot.net> From: Mark Nottingham To: Julian Reschke In-Reply-To: <47B9D5F5.3020808@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 07:22:41 +1100 References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> <47B9D5F5.3020808@gmx.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) Cc: Thomas Narten , Tim Bray , Apps Discuss , IANA X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Details: http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic Personally, if I had to serve this traffic, I'd put a highly- concurrent Web server (e.g., Lighttpd) in place and build a one-second + delay into serving those responses. Fine for human use, but will motivate software authors to find out why things suddenly got so slow... Beyond that, question: how many IETF specs use a namespace URI as the primary means of identifying the format/protocol? As opposed to a media type. My suspicion is that the number is fairly small. If that's the case, I wonder if there's a need for these URIs to be resolvable. Cheers, On 19/02/2008, at 6:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm adding IANA and Thomas Narten (author of IANA considerations >> docs) to this thread to get early IANA feedback about this idea. >> It may well be a good idea, but we definitely want to think it >> through: >> - A registry for HTTP URLs in the IANA domain >> ... including a HTML or XML document hosted by IANA on its >> Website at the location specified in the registered URL >> ... which means that end-users and developers will use these URIs, >> perhaps very frequently >> What do we know about the W3 experience hosting namespace URIs with >> actual documents at the URIs? I've been hearing rumours lately >> about something like this causing expensive levels of traffic, but >> I can't recall the details. >> ... > > That was about DTDs (fetched by XML parsers), not namespace documents. > > BR, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 18 13:26:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92ED33A699C; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:26:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.181 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.782, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IbQXiuxc6z9z; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0253A6857; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:26:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3273A67F5 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqNEUxym8rjW for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:26:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateout02.mbox.net (gateout02.mbox.net [165.212.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3A428C27E for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from gwsout01.mbox.net (gwsout01.mbox.net [165.212.64.24]) by gateout02.mbox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB686CC08E for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:26:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET [165.212.116.254] by gwsout01.mbox.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.34P) with ESMTP id XID186mBRVAJ2963Xo1; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:26:09 -0000 X-USANET-Source: 165.212.116.254 IN ldusseault@commerce.net GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET X-USANET-MsgId: XID186mBRVAJ2963Xo1 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([74.95.2.169]) by GW1.EXCHPROD.USA.NET over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:25:28 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Lisa Dusseault Subject: Notes from AAAW Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:25:25 -0800 To: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2008 21:25:28.0646 (UTC) FILETIME=[C88C2660:01C87274] X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Here are the notes from last week's Applications Area Architecture Workshop. The meeting agenda was put together on-the-spot, based on the interests and ideas expressed in the position papers. Agenda summary: Monday AM: Plenary session, URI Templates presentation, general discussion about good and bad reuse. Chris' framework combining all papers into advice for protocol designers. Monday PM1: 4 breakouts: HTTP Reuse, HTTP Auth, Net&App communication, URI templates. Monday PM2: discussions based on breakout topics, and collectively figured out breakout topics for Tuesday. Tuesday AM: breakouts on HTTP Mail and XML Schema Tuesday PM1: Localization (Location?) and Identifiers, Push/Pull & Notification Tuesday PM2: Synchronization, Documenting advice and giving pointers to Apps Protocol designers Many thanks to all the participants, for position papers, for notes taken (Barry and Leslie, notes inlined below). Advance thanks to those who follow up on their promises to publish I-Ds or take other action after the workshop! ---- Monday AM Plenary session URI templates explanation and discussion Joe. URI templates already appear in WSDL, one paragraph in it. Substitution rules should be complex enough to do what you want to do, but not Turing-complete; implementable but rich. Mark. URI templates very useful in figuring out "Here is where to go once we have more information" -- the username, etc. Template variable names might need to be standardized across sites??? Leslie, Mark. This, like anything, can be abused. How much effort should we put into applicability statements and preventing people from using in ways we don't like? Mark. Tangent about the Prefer header proposal by James Snell -- intended to provide clients a way to ask what kind of response they want particularly in the case of a new resource submission. How would we steer people to solve this, a general-purpose solution or not? Ted: Semantics are about meaning. Unless the original intended meaning constrains what you can express, the original intention does not prevent future users from expressing something completely different. Do we provide building blocks that are restricted, or do we provide building blocks that people can drop on their feet? Pete: Reuse is about neat syntax. Larry: Protocol design is not just about syntax, it's about semantics too. But you provide as little possible semantics to a neat syntax. The design goal is to not add so little semantics that you can't use it, but to add just enough. John: Whether we intend reuse or not, things leak all over the place. We can end up with constructions that are utterly uninterpretable. It's happened with HTTP URLs -- does it mean you go to a Web page and look at it, or is it a token you can use in your application to mean something? Ted: W3C's complaint last week was about people using too much bandwidth looking up HTTP URLs that weren't supposed to be dereferenceable! They realized this accidental dereferencing costs them real money. HTTP is classic for this. The host header: before the Host header was introduced we exhausted the IP address space at a ridiculous rate. What the IETF adds to application design is to do cross-area review and say "this is the result of your design". If you try to write guidance to prevent people from saying what they want to say and can say with a syntax, you are lost. In fact even if the syntax can only sort of say what they want to say, they will find a way to say it. Templating is a wonderful problem for this. There's a whole skein of problems I'd like to knit into nice solutions. [Knitting analogy was noted and appreciated by knitters present] Barry: A perennial thing in IMAP is using folders for actions: a Sent folder, a Deleted folder. They found ways to do what they wanted to do even though the standard didn't do it for them. Larry: We do need to look at what went wrong in the past. Ted: People coming to the problem space later do not see things in the same terms as the people who built the protocol. What barry said, The people who really felt they needed to do something invented all kinds of bad ways of getting that done. Pete: The people who invent their own crap are limited in the bad they cause. It's worse when we endorse something bad. [Ted: Our endorsement is useless.] When we shoot ourselves in the foot -- IDN is a lovely example -- we do much more damage to ourselves. John: IDN is a good example. The new proposal says that if you encounter the following bad things when finding a label in the client, you SHOULD NOT look it up in the DNS. Pete: In the case of IDN we've left the syntax the same and pumped up the limitations on the semantics. We try to arrange it to cause damage to the people who try to do bad things, not damage to everybody. Ted: You said that IMAP folder abusers didn't win because they couldn't interoperate. If they'd only written it down in a spec they would have won, it would have been easy to interoperate. Chris: Sometimes you add requirements that the server MUST reject something, and that can limit abuse. Larry: Why HTTP Authentication didn't work very well. It was kind of out of scope to bring into the HTTP Auth spec the details about what the user interaction would be. Independently of the flaws of the protocol itself, one of the reasons things didn't get adopted was because the WG couldn't talk about UI. Chris. That's a common problem and I push against that when I can. It's not viable to push back against HTTP form-based auth over TLS, because any replacement is not viable unless it has some level of branding and layout support for the dialog. It doesn't have to be full JavaScript widgets, but something. Larry. The folks with the expertise in what level of control they need in the UI don't come to IETF meetings, and the expertise isn't here. Mark. IETF folk don't realize why Web sites like using cookies and forms, not just for the UI but also for how crypto happens. Even if Digest Auth met my UI requirements, I'd need to trust the implementations of Digest. Whereas if I use cookies I can design my own little protocol using token exchange. Lisa: Pulling topic back to URI Templates. Cullen: URI Templates look great, my interest is of course in extending it! I think there may be a lot of theory under the name of string rewriting. It may not be useful to you. Mark: We talked about managing extensibility. What is IETF policy? Rohan: the policy is a mess? Lisa: Isn't the policy case-by-case, and how would we do otherwise? Joe: OAuth is getting much take-up outside the IETF. Nico: If you're going to do Authentication, you're also going to do session crypto. my pp touches on Cookies, but treats them as inevitable. Rohan: is there any reason why browsers couldn't go and do what you suggest doing today? [Nico: no] So there's no protocol work there, there's only evangelism. Nico: Cookies are a mechanism we use to tie session crypto, that's at a layer below the application. If you want to get rid of cookies, do crypto at the App layer. I don't think that's going to happen, so I think we're stuck with cookies forever. What's wrong with cookies? Lisa: Yngve's I-Ds explain some problems with cookies and present some solutions but there's never been much uptake or support for his I-Ds. You all should read them. John: Should somebody sit down with Yngve and do a Working Group proposal? Lisa: There's also the HTTP WG which Mark chairs. Yves: It's already hard to find people motivated enough to do work in the HTTP WG. Larry: We have the topic here about cookies but it's also about reusing authentication methods. The Liberty Alliance, I wonder if we step back from HTTP Auth to what is our general approach, that might not have much to do with cookies. Lisa: I'll step out on a limb here and say this is pretty political... There's Liberty Alliance proposal, OAuth, Kerberos proposals, Client certs in TLS. Nothing solves every problem. What can we accomplish in this workshop? I want to uplevel and discuss this only in the context of what should be the agenda or work item that would be good for this workshop? Cullen: If this group can do something about browser UIs for authentication, this would be good work. Mark: One of the outputs of a Bar BOF in Vancouver was to start work on another workshop specifically on that topic. We've had this discussion in a number of fora and we can't do it here effectively. Nico: I'm loathe to see Apps people say that security isn't our area of expertise and we can't talk about it. You know the result of that. Lisa: There's a W3C WG on Usable Auth, that's exactly what Cullen asked for as a group focus. Is anybody here part of that W3C WG? [there was nobody] Joe presented examples and use cases for URI Templates. Jeff explained need for a general reference for how to check server identity in certificates. Right now some specs reference 2818, some specs reference 4513, some specs reference 2830. It's more work than just cut-and-paste; there needs to be some real work and thought on this. Should we include, what happens to your authentication state when you stop and start TLS. LDAP had a lot of discussion how to do this right for LDAP, but it might not be right for other applications. Let's start with the server identity stuff, and the other stuff might be another spec. Larry: Are we not doing enough diligence in reviewing documents to see that they're doing all these references and inclusions and updates correctly? Chris presented a framework for all the PPs about reuse, and pointed out how this could be an outline for a general paper on Apps protocol design. ---- Monday PM1 HTTP Reuse: report after breakout Lisa: In discussing HTTP re-use, we broke applications we might advise into three different groups. This is clearer than BCP56's targeting. Some applications extend the functionality of HTTP for existing resources, and advice to those designers is probably very case-dependent. Some protocols borrow HTTP syntax and again that's probably very case dependent. What we might consider is advice for protocols that tunnel over HTTP, that may define limited-use application-specific resources or not define resources at all. However, we don't seem to have consensus on what kind of advice to offer those applications except that to admit that the port- definition advice in BCP56 is clearly being ignored. We don't have a common model on the drawbacks of defining new methods, or even on the necessity of flagging the existence of a new protocol by any means. How do we decide how much advice, if any, to give to people using HTTP? Yves is likely to try to write an I-D, and drag Thomas (not present) into it. Maybe it can obsolete BCP56 or update the part that makes port number use recommendations that everybody ignores. Network and Apps: report after breakout Ted: Summarized a wide-ranging discussion on the network, transport protocols and apps. Added the application *semantics* layer, which is really what users are interested in, and this is different even from the application *protocol* layer. We discussed how a layer violation is a layer transmission that is unexpected. We discussed how applications really can't ignore what the application protocol syntax is, can't even ignore whether TCP or UDP is being used. Packet loss rates affect high-level choices. Even whether you're using 802.11 or Ethernet affects threat models. In actual deployments, we have a bunch of protocols that deeply understand semantics like "hypertext" but that immediately got adopted by many other semantics. We should look forward to XMPP being used by many things other than IM and buddy list. Ted offers a question for the ADs that follow him; Does the APps area look for new work which is new building blocks that applications might make use of, or do they look for new applications and count on designing the pieces those applications need? Ted believes the building block work can happen but it doesn't usually succeed in deployment without a driving need, and BEEP is an example of that. HTTP Authentication: Notes by Barry ----------------------------------------------------------- Breakout on HTTP authentication (Barry, Chris, Nico, Mark, Tony, Kurt, Jeff) Issue: develop HTTP authentication protocol that 1. reduces phishing, and 2. is likely to be deployed. Simplifying assumption: initial enrollment is a harder problem, is less susceptible to phishing, and won't be considered here. What to do: 1. Develop an authorization framework such that: a. No identifier/password is transmitted, even over TLS. b. Using (a), eliminate the need for a user to enter a password in an HTML form. Users would be taught to enter passwords only in the password-entry widget (java or activex, say). "80%" solution. c. Use an auth mechanism (such as public key method) that makes a password useful only locally (password to the local keychain, for instance). Exposure of the password to the bad guys no longer matters, even if they convince the user to do it. "95%" solution. 2. Firefox is a good starting point. Make a Firefox extension prototype a prereq for real work here. FF extension can "discourage" entry of passwords into HTTP forms, to enhance the effectiveness of 1b, above. 3. Get input about requirements, from "real" phishing targets. - Engage APWG? - Mark tells of possible workshop coming from Vancouver bar BOF. - Klensin notes that talking to banks and such is useless. Suggests engaging congress (senior staffer to chair of House Banking Committee, for instance). Notes about the framework: 1. Write XML HTTP req with channel binding 2. Write javascript bindings to SASL UI notes: 1. "Directed identities" built into the browser -- browser strongly discourages user from using "boa.com" identity for "b0a.com" or "boa- login.com" web site. 2. Discussion of colour cues and other OK/warning mechanisms. Note that anything that will work has to be VERY hard to miss or misunderstand. Note also that most have accessibility (a11y?) issues. ----------------------------------------------------------- Monday PM2: used in reporting back from breakouts, and to figure out breakout topics for Tuesday ----- Tuesday AM XML Schema Rohan's response to request for notes: "Ugh" Email architecture and HTTPMail: Notes by Leslie ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Random question -- is it the case that we already have more e-mail retrieved over HTTP than by IMAP? Mailbox is a uniform store; no hierarchy or imposed structure. Why another protocol? Pete responds -- HTTP is not being used to retrieve e-mail; it is being used to *view* e-mail. Many services use IMAP to retrieve the e-mail that is presented over HTTP. Chris & Lisa elaborate -- there is a 3rd piece of the puzzle, eg using AJAX to build the interface between IMAP and the viewed e-mail front end in HTML. Pete is comfortable with this being a back-end protocol. Believes that things like GMail are doing stuff more like this than like IMAP -- i.e., a unified store with no particular structure enforced on it. Lemonade "happened". We've suffered through IMAP to try to get things to work with small devices -- need to take a step back and develop something that will inherently be used with different devices. Leslie -- well, what are the things that need standardization in order to make a uniform experience across e-mail instances. Lisa -- need to have URIs for all messages in the store; standardized set of retrieval expectations (e.g., by time received, etc). Agree -- one of IMAP's limitations is the set of properties is fixed (and only extensible with x- headers). So, it would be interesting to have the ability to add to the list -- clients or servers or both? Are they immutable (whether set by client or by server?). E.g., timestamps should not be changed by the client, because it will screw up synchronization of other clients accessing the same store. Revisiting the existing distinction between message headers and message delivery headers. (E.g., received-by). Pete wants to make an architectural separation between properties that are immutable or user-adjustable. Lisa asks why? Immutable attributes are part of the message object; others can be part of the metadata associated with the message. Lisa argues that that separation is real (what is message, what is metadata) but is not necessarily aligned with the immutable/not distinction. John suggests that there are 3 categories: 1/ if the mailbox is public there is set stuff everyone can see; 2/ the client can set properties that it expects no one else to see; 3/ things that the client can set but others may see (which brings up the whole issue of ACLs). Next issue is the question of "what do you download". What do you want/expect to be able to download in a single transaction? (I.e., "just" the message, or message with what attributes?). Comparison is drawn to ATOM -- where, for example, it is asserted that the client cannot "trust" that the server has offered the entire body of the entry. While the trust model between mail client and server provider is more direct (than with ATOM feeds), the same situation is likely to apply -- the server may elect not to offer the entire message body if there is need to allow servers to optimize for (perceived) conditions -- e.g., dealing with small devices, etc. Chris asks -- does this mean breaking open RFC2822? Pete describes alternative for co-existence going forward -- getting stuff into and out of this format from 2822 format. What about submission? Handle same way as lemonade: store the message and use a trigger to get an SMTP server to take it and ship it. Pete believes both delivery and submission will be clients of the access protocol. Lisa suggests a strawman: accept reality and deal with metadata the way applications do, by changing the URL -- adding specifiers for the part of the object you are after (body, metadata, plaintext). This allows for caching the explicit results. Pushback on this as a kludge. Though Pete allows that an HTTP front end on this could allow for different command data and results in different URLs. From experience in managing very large scale deployed bases, Chris offers that what you want is to have a highly stable, immutable data store backend. Where you want to do the munging & servicing is at the access layer of boxen. Joe offers that Google does _not_ have that experience. Google does not have a single high-availability, high coherency big iron back end. Instead, it has a table and a honking great distributed file system. Pete counters that this doesn't take away from the point that you want to do the processing at the outside edge. Chris -- 4 types of IMAP state. 1/ security layer (tls) IMAP state. 2/ authentication state 2/ current selected mailbox (a big part of IMAP state; goes away in Pete's architecture) 4/ state related to keeping a mobile state in sync with a server. Chris thinks this is important to keep; it's very useful. Cullen -- yes, you want a pub/ sub structure. Leslie steps back and asks -- what is the big win with moving to this? Pete's answer -- we have a long (and growing) list of things we cannot do with the current architecture. So, this is throwing the baby away with the bathwater. It'll be a step back in order to step forward successfully. The concern is that this step back will be a death knell to the whole idea. GMail is already an evolutionary competitor -- that's what people will use. Lisa's interest in this is for "e-mail mashups", and other innovative uses of messaging. A lot of concerns about feasibility -- does this solve enough problems that it will actually be taken up? See note above about GMail solving the webmail problem. Not clear that finding device manufactures to implement this would actually produce the desired result? Just running forward with this will run into the same problem as BEEP -- without a driving application, this will be developed and delivered in a vacuum. Cullen offers -- if you can't do integration with Exchange, you're dead in the water. It's observed that just requires there is a "this" <-> MAPI interface, implemented by MS or other. Pete comes back to the issue: this is a desired architectural upgrade to be able to address existing limitations in IMAP that will go nowhere unless there is someone willing to implement. Lisa pushes back -- she would like to see a very preliminary protocol (with implementation?) to demonstrate the specific directions and stir the imagination of potential implementers (of webmail services). "Oh, I can do with this!". (Ties into Tony Hansen's position paper on extreme protocol development?). Nico -- would like to see a bit of text about the limitations of IMAP and the philosophy of the architecture in the documentation as well. Chris asks -- what are the minimum changes to IMAP needed in order to be able to achieve the desired architecture? E.g., you need an identifier that doesn't change irrespective of messages moving. Because they will still move -- either because people are using (traditional) IMAP clients against the message store or simply because people still want to user their existing message repositories and want to be able to what the data store does to the message. For example, you need to be able to tag messages to be in particular groups, which corresponds to today's (implementation of) filing messages in separate folders: need to be able to recreate something like folders. Threads across multiple accounts; threads across information stores (e.g., e-mail, blogs) would be useful. Need to think about integrating this in a broader sense of workflow. There _is_ general frustration with the lack of integration of e-mail with other activities -- e.g., bringing messages into other applications that are being used to carry out a given task. This is accessing your message store from other applications. Or, assigning a message to another recipient (owner). Pete observes that he explicitly stayed away from that whole concept in his draft. At some point, we are really talking about a generalized document (or object) store -- what would we like to do with all of your files, for example? As part of your workflow. So, the path forward might be to work with an IMAP server software developer to provide an implementation that integrates access using this model with their IMAP service. Then the client development becomes less instantly critical and can evolve to take advantage of the expanded functionality. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- ---- Tuesday PM1 Breakout: Localization (Location?) and Identifiers Led by Ted 1. DNS is not great for anything but network-facing resources. It's not a good way to look up pizza delivery services. 2. Would a directory above DNS help with the use cases? Breakout: Push/Pull, Notification HTTP is good for pull. HTTP-based systems need a simple way to push. COMET? Long poll or infinite response? Will anybody implement another protocol besides HTTP? We discussed browsers' focus on HTTP exclusively. How do we get the word out? Yves will see if the W3C mobile interests WG is interested in hearing about this; maybe mobile clients are a real consumer for this so that a mobile device's server can be their notifications aggregator. One missing building block is the binding between HTTP resources and the place where you can get notifications. One might be interested in a single HTTP resource (e.g. a feed, a front page) or a family of resources (e.g. a photo album online). THe binding for both Atom and HTTP could be Link Relations: the server would advertise the related notification resource either in the link relation of the Atom Feed document, or in the Link response header with the same type. We had a good discussion of the security implications of putting any content in notifications. ---- Tuesday PM2 Breakout: Synchronization Although there's years of work, thousands of PhDs and many solutions on Synch, we still have real user problems. The one Cullen was most concerned about when he wrote his PP is the personal Address Book problem. It's just one person's data, and yet it can't get synchronized properly between phones, cars, and multiple laptops. We realize that conflict resolution is deeply dependent on the application semantic: it may be fine to synchronize a change to one attendee's status and a change to another attendee's status by applying both changes even if they were made by different people; but a change to location and to host of an event might not be applied together. Can we separate the semantics and conflict resolution from the transport of changes and change metadata? What change metadata is required (timestamps, time intervals, user identification)? We talked about how atomicity is also application semantic dependent, and how we need a number of UUIDs for atomic objects, devices, perhaps even changes or change sets. Breakout: Application Protocol Guide When people consider solving certain problems in application protocols they can find a lot of prior art: - application bootstrapping, how to find your app server - application configuration, how to set up your client - Protocol substrates and how to use them - Data encoding - Authentication, encryption, session state - i18n - URN/URI use - Schemas and XML use - Extensibility, capability advertisement and negotiation - Registration and naming issues - Modular design Chris & his breakout group gathered many pointers of good and bad examples of design in these categories. Sometimes we can point to other BCPs, sometimes the advice and pointers we can give are not yet gathered any place. Wrap-up: Thanks to host Google for hosting and CommerceNet for dinner. From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 05:02:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DE13A6A59; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:02:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.226, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MC3OvR08gpLJ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:02:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EC128C4C9; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:02:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA8628C4C9 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:02:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qgKqCyy3zUw for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:02:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16503A6A71 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 60E821C010B; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:02:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F611C00E7; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:02:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C35858EBBE; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:02:08 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:02:08 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Tim Bray Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt Message-ID: <20080219130208.GA30846@nic.fr> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> <517bf110802181018y258276c9u9d866bebecd44a68@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <517bf110802181018y258276c9u9d866bebecd44a68@mail.gmail.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: Thomas Narten , Apps Discuss , Tim Bray , Mark Nottingham , IANA X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:18:16AM -0800, Tim Bray wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > certain moronic software authors, for reasons best known to > themselves, issue a GET on the stupid thing Because they need the DTD to get the HTML entities? (Yes, they should use catalogs, caching, etc but I wanted to emphasize that I do not find the idea "moronic".) From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 08:18:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E919928C667; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:18:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.405 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.844, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cSTmOBbPDNi5; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:18:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D7C28C613; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:18:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BA228C614 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:18:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-pZ1EII82BF for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA22228C613 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 1AF06203C0; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:18:01 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-a91fcbb000000b15-fc-47bb0138e5fa Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id EA74320093; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:18:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.171]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:18:00 +0100 Received: from [159.107.197.224] ([159.107.197.224]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:18:00 +0100 Message-ID: <47BB0137.6050600@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:17:59 +0100 From: Balazs Lengyel User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> <47B9D5F5.3020808@gmx.de> <9A910F0F-7930-4D84-A0A8-46FE86A6618E@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <9A910F0F-7930-4D84-A0A8-46FE86A6618E@mnot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2008 16:18:00.0340 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEE9CD40:01C87312] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Thomas Narten , Apps Discuss , IANA , Tim Bray X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hello, In Netconf we will be using quite a bit of URIs soon. IF Netconf becomes the roaring success we believe in :-) we will use one URI for every standard management model (kind of MIB). Balazs Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Details: > http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic > > Personally, if I had to serve this traffic, I'd put a highly-concurrent > Web server (e.g., Lighttpd) in place and build a one-second+ delay into > serving those responses. Fine for human use, but will motivate software > authors to find out why things suddenly got so slow... > > Beyond that, question: how many IETF specs use a namespace URI as the > primary means of identifying the format/protocol? As opposed to a media > type. My suspicion is that the number is fairly small. If that's the > case, I wonder if there's a need for these URIs to be resolvable. > > Cheers, > > > On 19/02/2008, at 6:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Lisa Dusseault wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I'm adding IANA and Thomas Narten (author of IANA considerations >>> docs) to this thread to get early IANA feedback about this idea. It >>> may well be a good idea, but we definitely want to think it through: >>> - A registry for HTTP URLs in the IANA domain >>> ... including a HTML or XML document hosted by IANA on its Website >>> at the location specified in the registered URL >>> ... which means that end-users and developers will use these URIs, >>> perhaps very frequently >>> What do we know about the W3 experience hosting namespace URIs with >>> actual documents at the URIs? I've been hearing rumours lately about >>> something like this causing expensive levels of traffic, but I can't >>> recall the details. >>> ... >> >> That was about DTDs (fetched by XML parsers), not namespace documents. >> >> BR, Julian > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > -- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. TSP System Manager ECN: 831 7320 Fax: +36 1 4377792 Tel: +36-1-437-7320 email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 19 10:47:48 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B293A6A0B; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:47:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.967, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DfKLs8btXcVI; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:47:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912AF3A683D; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:47:48 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71293A683D for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:47:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xcg+1+gsz-mZ for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:47:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F883A679C for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:47:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.167.78.56] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1JRXVG-00050E-WA; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:47:43 -0500 Message-ID: <007b01c87328$08bab900$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "Apps Discuss" References: <6.0.0.20.2.20080218203629.058cf7c0@localhost> <048BF0AB-6FCB-411B-AD4B-726DF8B13B08@osafoundation.org> <47B9D5F5.3020808@gmx.de><9A910F0F-7930-4D84-A0A8-46FE86A6618E@mnot.net> <47BB0137.6050600@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:48:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d8885d2a9c731cc891172964707821e9e7e0608c8863977f637f350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 66.167.78.56 Cc: IANA X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "Balazs Lengyel" > To: "Mark Nottingham" > Cc: "Thomas Narten" ; "Apps Discuss" ; "IANA" ; "Tim Bray" > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:17 AM > Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt > > Hello, > In Netconf we will be using quite a bit of URIs soon. IF Netconf becomes the roaring success we > believe in :-) we will use one URI for every standard management model (kind of MIB). ... As well as URIs (though not necessarily in our space) for every single vendor's management models and extensions. Depending on the data modeling proposal, these could be either numerous or very numerous. In at least one modeling approach, one would likely end up with URIs for each version of each vendor's implementations of each "MIB", as well as their proprietary bits and pieces. Randy From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Feb 22 06:06:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE46528C3F5; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:06:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.817 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.817 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.782, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IzPXF0ol4lzs; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:06:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31C23A6CB9; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:06:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884D428C332 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:06:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tJVMwMYZ9mu4 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6E528C398 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:06:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JSYXR-0003bV-RI for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:06:10 +0000 Received: from 1cust35.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.10.35]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:06:09 +0000 Received: from nobody by 1cust35.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:06:09 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: discuss@apps.ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: IDNAbis documents Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:07:35 +0100 Organization: Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust35.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org John C Klensin wrote: > I suggest that anyone interested in IDNA examine them as > closely as possible. I tried something simpler, a collection of IDN + EAI + IRI related RFCs and drafts, see . Frank From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 05:05:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86D928C2C8; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:05:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.335, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CZBvfaiPlEvV; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C5D28C276; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:05:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6771E28C265 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:05:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WxoMJeyHEruq for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.generic-nic.net (eve.generic-nic.net [192.134.7.250]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C85C28C276 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from myriam.generic-nic.net (myriam.generic-nic.net [192.134.7.247]) by mail.generic-nic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1000022AFA9 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:05:28 +0100 (CET) Received: by myriam.generic-nic.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 52B517C067; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:05:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:05:27 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Subject: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: Generic NIC X-URL: http://www.generic-nic.net/ X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.18-3-sparc64 sparc64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Sorry to (ab)use the patience of fellow IETFers but I'm puzzled for a long time by an apparent gap in Internet protocols: there is no standard of identity for machines on the Internet. I recently read a report about a P2P program which was difficult to port to IPv6 because it used the IP address as the machine identity and it was a problem to have several addresses (such as one in v4 and one in v6). The problem is that there is no obvious way to find the identity of the machine. P2P programs typically require it because they base things like reputation on it. Such an identity should be unique and provable. There are solutions for some protocols (SSH keys of RFC 4251 or Host Identifiers of HIP in RFC 4423 are two good examples) but no general "identity layer" in the Internet architecture. Did I miss something? Is there work on it somwhere? From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 05:17:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F09B3A6839; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:17:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cBhJXN49dx+6; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:17:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195C428C205; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:17:52 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA8728C2EF for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:17:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ecIgjGqDMovj for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [194.1.163.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94CA28C2FA for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:17:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF04740200F; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:11:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:11:55 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> In-Reply-To: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig763525FBFA290276908F9B8A" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.92.1, clamav-milter version 0.92.1 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig763525FBFA290276908F9B8A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: [..] > There are solutions for some protocols (SSH keys of RFC 4251 or Host > Identifiers of HIP in RFC 4423 are two good examples) but no general > "identity layer" in the Internet architecture. IMHO HIP (RFC4423) is that exact identity layer and additionally solves=20 a number of other issues that it was made for. The big problem though is that actually getting programs to use this is=20 cumbersome, simply because a lot of programmers don't know about it. Same goes for the use of SRV records, IMHO, instead of point to AAAA/A=20 records for a service, one should *always* use SRV records. SRV records solve loadbalancing, failover and a lot of other issues=20 mostly already in DNS. Webbrowsers for instance don't do SRV yet. One of their arguments is=20 'lookup time', the same reason that some 'webdevelopers' used IP=20 addresses in their websites as that would skip the resolving step... This is more about educating programmers than anything else... Greets, Jeroen --------------enig763525FBFA290276908F9B8A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFHxBAbKaooUjM+fCMRAm23AKCi6UcGyI3g9UsOg3TRp4b48AsbQgCgk0jU mAu4MHvoYtIsQc9tkEgYdjY= =iT+z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig763525FBFA290276908F9B8A-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 06:19:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EA928C4CC; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:19:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.714, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kvqvmNRW16+M; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:19:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D420328C4B2; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:19:14 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B368328C4B2 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:19:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EpappzN1JRRy for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD47828C4A8 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) id <0JWU00501NOTMP@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0JWU00G15NOTWV@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:17:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:19:00 -0500 From: James Galvin Subject: this list is moving and being renamed as apps-discuss@ietf.org To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Message-id: <1F89301248E9910C82505D17@[192.168.1.3]> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has decided that all ietf.org mailing lists should be in the ietf.org domain. In almost all cases this decision has no effect and is invisible for all practical purposes. IETF hosted mailing lists have always been valid in the ietf.org domain regardless of their sub-domain. This mailing list is one of the very few exceptions, caused in large part by the fact that the apps.ietf.org domain has been delegated and hosted off-site, but the mailing lists were never really delegated. In addition, the new infrastructure enforces virtual domains while the old infrastructure did not. In combination, these two facts are what caused the discuss list to fail after the cut-over. We are aware that some mailing lists, this one included, are listed in RFCs and other formal documents. For these lists backwards compatibility will be maintained. This list has the additional problem of being named "discuss", which was not a problem in the apps.ietf.org domain but is too generic for use in the ietf.org domain. Therefore, this list will be renamed as apps-discuss. The old archives will be left in place. The new archives will be created and maintained by Mailman, although they will not be accessible for a short while. The IETF has historically managed its own archives for its mailing lists. This means we have home-grown scripts for creating the text archives and the web archives. The web archive script uses MHonArc. We are going to migrate all IETF hosted mailing lists to use the Mailman archive system, leaving all old archives intact. Until that change takes place, Mailman only archives will be inaccessible. We expect this change to take place within the next 2-3 weeks. Please be patient about accessing the archives until that time. All subscribers of discuss@apps.ietf.org will be moved to apps-discuss@ietf.org. A notice will be sent to the new list as soon as the move is complete. This change will take place later today. You may want to update any filters you have that depend on this information now. For those who "remember" their Mailman password for the discuss mailing list, you will need to set a new password for the apps-discuss list using the usual Mailman process, after the new list is operational Thanks, Jim From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 06:28:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA1428C2E4; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:28:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gOWNldZgvBDb; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:28:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0EB28C396; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:28:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD9F628C396 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:28:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4rlr7ZZxQMvJ for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:28:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072CA28C357 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:28:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D7F21C009F; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:27:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3799A1C0097; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:27:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26AAA58E9F2; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:27:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:27:54 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080226142754.GA12093@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:11:55PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote a message of 47 lines which said: > IMHO HIP (RFC4423) is that exact identity layer I feel the same way but it does not seem that HIP interests many people? > The big problem though is that actually getting programs to use this > is cumbersome, simply because a lot of programmers don't know about > it. Via draft-ietf-hip-native-api? How many implementation? How could I use it on a machine which has no HIP in its kernel? From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 07:41:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125D83A6B8B for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:41:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bzQPk9zk+GQo for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D203A6B33 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:41:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: You have been unsubscribed from the Apps-Discuss mailing list From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org To: discuss-archive@megatron.ietf.org Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:41:37 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols X-List-Administrivia: yes Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 07:48:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B34B28C388; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:48:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lOtxS-C0ryLn; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:48:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E043C28C32E; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:48:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643F828C246 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:48:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SbB1FNwWJUF7 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA [216.46.5.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5602328C32E for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:48:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA20917; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:47:52 -0500 (EST) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies. Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:41:41 -0500 (EST) To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Subject: Re: Machine Identity In-Reply-To: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org > [...]: there is no standard of identity for machines on the Internet. > Such an identity should be unique and provable. This is extremely hard to do, since the machine is represented only by the software running on it, and that can present any identity it chooses, unique or not. This could be "solved" by something like public-key crypto in hardware, but (a) there's no way to prevent a software implementation short of something like a PKI signer who signs only stored-in-hardware keys (which has a whole raft of problems of its own) and (b) a hardware version has a pile of problems of _its_ own, starting with installed base and end-user resistance. (I know *I* certainly wouldn't use such a thing.) /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 08:04:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84813A6D60; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.112 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3n+D7kDd1UL; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980653A6D4A; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:25 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493753A6D09 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Owfih-7BAPK4 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E183A6CBA for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:04:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id BCF351C00FA; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:04:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AE11C00EF; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:04:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1F058E9F2; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:04:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:04:12 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: der Mouse Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:41:41AM -0500, der Mouse wrote a message of 20 lines which said: > > [...]: there is no standard of identity for machines on the Internet. > > > Such an identity should be unique and provable. > > This is extremely hard to do, OK, let me rewrite it in a more realistic way. Such an identity should be almost unique (as is a number choosen at random in a very large space) and the machine should be able to prove that it indeed "owns" this identity (as is an ID which is the public part of a cryptographic key). For me, SSH keys or HIP Host Identifiers fulfill these requirments. From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 08:24:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CC93A6D4F; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.193, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8j5Y13anBguR; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6163A6D1A; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:22 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E29F3A6CC0 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ISWTOk1+SKy5 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E76A3A68F3 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.indecency.org (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with ESMTP id AMV84940 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:24:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C43D24.6070006@network-heretics.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:04 -0500 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Jeroen Massar wrote: > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > [..] >> There are solutions for some protocols (SSH keys of RFC 4251 or Host >> Identifiers of HIP in RFC 4423 are two good examples) but no general >> "identity layer" in the Internet architecture. > > IMHO HIP (RFC4423) is that exact identity layer and additionally solves > a number of other issues that it was made for. > > The big problem though is that actually getting programs to use this is > cumbersome, simply because a lot of programmers don't know about it. I like HIP. But if there is any OS that ships with HIP support, I haven't heard about it. And as soon as we get a "machine identity" I suspect we'll realize that what people want to identify isn't exactly a "machine" anymore. > Same goes for the use of SRV records, IMHO, instead of point to AAAA/A > records for a service, one should *always* use SRV records. NO. SRV records can only be used with applications that are specified to use SRV records - otherwise you'll break compatibility with legacy applications. And there are very few of these. > SRV records solve loadbalancing, failover and a lot of other issues > mostly already in DNS. Yeah, and they create a tussle between DNS operators and users. > Webbrowsers for instance don't do SRV yet. One of their arguments is > 'lookup time', the same reason that some 'webdevelopers' used IP > addresses in their websites as that would skip the resolving step... > > This is more about educating programmers than anything else... Seems like IETFers need education at least as much as programmers do... Keith From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 10:06:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A04228C749; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqiN0xvHMElq; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D80C28C725; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:06:09 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C53928C6CB for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:06:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LfmnjOJREDnn for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:06:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA [216.46.5.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F20228C3E5 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA21846; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:03:30 -0500 (EST) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200802261803.NAA21846@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies. Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:50:50 -0500 (EST) To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Subject: Re: Machine Identity In-Reply-To: <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org > Such an identity should be almost unique (as is a number choosen at > random in a very large space) and the machine should be able to prove > that it indeed "owns" this identity (as is an ID which is the public > part of a cryptographic key). > For me, SSH keys or HIP Host Identifiers fulfill these requirments. Then you have a relatively loose definition of "owns", because an SSH identity demonstrates merely that the host has the cooperation of someone who owns the identity. Furthermore, there may be multiple machines that own the identity in the sense of having the private data, since the private data can be copied between machines. That may be fine for your purposes, but there are people, such as DRM wonks, to whom either of those two properties ("has the cooperation of", and copyability) is unacceptable. As someone remarked upthread, get host identities and you'll find that lots of people actually want something slightly different from host identities (no matter what value of "host identities" it is you get). Of course, for on-the-wire purposes, you can't prove more than "has the cooperation of" no matter what you do; all you can demonstrate is that some entity able to act as the other end of that packet stream you're seeing has the identity in question. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 10:38:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9127828C72C; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:38:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.965 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.366, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dbXKora21Xth; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9C228C20F; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:38:29 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C866528C3F7 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:38:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tdYloFYrXtyz for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:38:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:20e:2eff:fec8:eb01]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8B828C4DD for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:37:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-68-122-124-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.124.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1QIb4nY010449 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:37:09 -0800 Message-ID: <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:37:06 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> In-Reply-To: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6003/Tue Feb 26 03:34:31 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:37:09 -0800 (PST) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org I feel obligated to ask an obvious question: Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? While there are arguments that it is inapplicable for some scenarios, this does not apply to all scenarios. So what are the details of the usage you have in mind that render a Domain Name useless? d/ Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Sorry to (ab)use the patience of fellow IETFers but I'm puzzled for a > long time by an apparent gap in Internet protocols: there is no > standard of identity for machines on the Internet. > > I recently read a report about a P2P program which was difficult to > port to IPv6 because it used the IP address as the machine identity > and it was a problem to have several addresses (such as one in v4 and > one in v6). > > The problem is that there is no obvious way to find the identity of > the machine. P2P programs typically require it because they base > things like reputation on it. Such an identity should be unique and > provable. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 10:50:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586F53A6CCB; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.101, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3+DYmiqwlJH; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFBC28C27F; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:55 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA5128C27F for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2h9iQj5i-wI0 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616D03A6CCB for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.indecency.org (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with ESMTP id AMW08460 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C45F83.7010705@network-heretics.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:50:43 -0500 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Dave Crocker wrote: > I feel obligated to ask an obvious question: > > Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? > the usual reason is that there's a disconnect between the domain name and the host or the app. the host owner doesn't control the DNS zone for his host. instead, it's under the control of a network admin somewhere. this leads to any number of failures, e.g. there is no stable name that is bound to the host, or the name-to-address bindings can't be maintained in an up-to-date fashion. Keith From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 11:24:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594283A6B68; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.340, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id brgG7MnCcLR4; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D88428C1E3; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:54 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8CB53A6B68 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3RcRzqXWYheO for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:20e:2eff:fec8:eb01]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDA23A68B5 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-68-122-124-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.124.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1QJOZiG012000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:40 -0800 Message-ID: <47C46775.2040100@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:37 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <47C45F83.7010705@network-heretics.com> In-Reply-To: <47C45F83.7010705@network-heretics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6003/Tue Feb 26 03:34:31 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:24:41 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Keith Moore wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: >> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? > the usual reason is that there's a disconnect between the domain name > and the host or the app. the host owner doesn't control the DNS zone > for his host. instead, it's under the control of a network admin > somewhere. this leads to any number of failures, e.g. there is no > stable name that is bound to the host, or the name-to-address bindings > can't be maintained in an up-to-date fashion. That implies a considerable number of assertions about the alternative that were not stated. This realm is marked by massive leaps of unstated requirements faith, ten which to result in talking past each other. That's why I asked Stephane to clarify exactly what requirements he is trying to satisfy. The rest of us would merely be guessing. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 11:29:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9F628C7B7; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:29:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.022, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVfpSURAex9U; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52DD928C32C; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:28:59 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAEC28C478 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:28:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vm5LbLTJBNCC for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:28:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDE928C376 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.indecency.org (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with ESMTP id AMW13897 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:28:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C46868.8070303@network-heretics.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:28:40 -0500 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <47C45F83.7010705@network-heretics.com> <47C46775.2040100@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <47C46775.2040100@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Keith Moore wrote: >> Dave Crocker wrote: >>> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? >> the usual reason is that there's a disconnect between the domain name >> and the host or the app. the host owner doesn't control the DNS zone >> for his host. instead, it's under the control of a network admin >> somewhere. this leads to any number of failures, e.g. there is no >> stable name that is bound to the host, or the name-to-address bindings >> can't be maintained in an up-to-date fashion. > > > That implies a considerable number of assertions about the alternative > that were not stated. > > This realm is marked by massive leaps of unstated requirements faith, > ten which to result in talking past each other. > > That's why I asked Stephane to clarify exactly what requirements he is > trying to satisfy. > > The rest of us would merely be guessing. well, I generally think that IETF exists to solve general problems, rather than an individual's specific problems. Keith From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 11:53:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0441528C563; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.916 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kdkG2wkUYrXi; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96FF28C4F9; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:37 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056FC28C1E3 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8+ONm5-H49+D for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:20e:2eff:fec8:eb01]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C008128C4F9 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-68-122-124-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.124.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1QJrMmv012814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:28 -0800 Message-ID: <47C46E34.7040309@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:24 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Moore Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <47C45F83.7010705@network-heretics.com> In-Reply-To: <47C45F83.7010705@network-heretics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6003/Tue Feb 26 03:34:31 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:53:28 -0800 (PST) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Keith Moore wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: >> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? > the usual reason is that there's a disconnect between the domain name > and the host or the app. That was not a major reason that was cited during the extended period of debate about identifier/locator separation design issues. But to repeat: Only Stephane knows exactly what he has in mind. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 12:01:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6AF28C7E9; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:01:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.297, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C+4swjgHIbc4; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3DA28C89C; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:00:16 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1451928C842 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:00:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qqVl5n3+GQ9W for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:20e:2eff:fec8:eb01]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AE928C3B0 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:00:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-68-122-124-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.124.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1QJxpMD013061 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:59:56 -0800 Message-ID: <47C46FBA.2090009@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:59:54 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6003/Tue Feb 26 03:34:31 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:59:57 -0800 (PST) Cc: der Mouse , discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Such an identity should be almost unique (as is a number choosen at > random in a very large space) and the machine should be able to prove > that it indeed "owns" this identity (as is an ID which is the public > part of a cryptographic key). > > For me, SSH keys or HIP Host Identifiers fulfill these requirments. Apologies. My query about your requirements was sent before receiving your later note. You are talking about an identifier that is used only during a session, since the statistical aspect of uniqueness wouldn't be acceptable for a persistent identifier. Let me modify my query. Rather than asking about your requirements, I'll ask about the uses you have in mind. For example, identity-based initial rendezvous requires a persistent, unique identifier that is globally obtainable. Re-establishing a session well might not. Simplistically, an identifier that is used between sessions seems to need to be globally registered, unique, and obtainable. An identifier used within a session can be transient, private and statistical. So can you describe particular scenarios you have in mind, where the identifier is used? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 12:35:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7815B28C481; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:35:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.645 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.645 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.954, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOM2kAIb-LXK; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463FA28C1A2; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:35:26 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA14E3A6784 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:35:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KQ9FgbIn71Ix for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from m1.imap-partners.net (m1.imap-partners.net [64.13.152.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2347E3A68BD for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:35:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lust.indecency.org (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by m1.imap-partners.net (MOS 3.8.4-GA) with ESMTP id AMW23099 (AUTH admin@network-heretics.com) for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:35:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C47803.5030409@network-heretics.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:35:15 -0500 From: Keith Moore User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <47C45F83.7010705@network-heretics.com> <47C46E34.7040309@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <47C46E34.7040309@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org >>> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? >> the usual reason is that there's a disconnect between the domain name >> and the host or the app. > > > That was not a major reason that was cited during the extended period of > debate about identifier/locator separation design issues. Well I certainly brought it up, multiple times, during the NSRG discussions. > But to repeat: Only Stephane knows exactly what he has in mind. And I'm curious to know that as well. I just don't think we have to confine our discussion here to what Stephane has in mind. From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 26 14:28:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD1728C460; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:28:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.860, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L3Fwc+UeFSO2; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70A83A67E7; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:28:50 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED3553A6878 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:28:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DL8sUS11XqY for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:28:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from twilight.cs.hut.fi (twilight.cs.hut.fi [130.233.40.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E451C3A67E7 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix, from userid 60001) id CF4D72DEC; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:28:41 +0200 (EET) X-Spam-Niksula: No Received: from kekkonen (kekkonen.cs.hut.fi [130.233.41.50]) by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5521B2DDF; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:28:40 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:28:40 +0200 (EET) From: Miika Komu X-X-Sender: mkomu@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity In-Reply-To: <20080226142754.GA12093@nic.fr> Message-ID: References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <20080226142754.GA12093@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, Jeroen Massar , apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Hi, > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:11:55PM +0100, > Jeroen Massar wrote > a message of 47 lines which said: > >> IMHO HIP (RFC4423) is that exact identity layer > > I feel the same way but it does not seem that HIP interests many > people? _o/ >> The big problem though is that actually getting programs to use this >> is cumbersome, simply because a lot of programmers don't know about >> it. > > Via draft-ietf-hip-native-api? How many implementation? How could I > use it on a machine which has no HIP in its kernel? Yes, the native API is an explicit way of using HIP: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-native-api-04.txt Fortunately, also legacy applications can also use HIP: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-applications-02.txt While waiting for changes to libc, the DNS interaction can be accomplished by running a DNS proxy in the localhost that can do the HIP magic. The kernel support for the new beet mode is not mandatory because it can be implemented in userspace using tun/tap devices like OpenHIP does it already. Our project (InfraHIP) has contributed already the kernel patches to the Linux kernel and half of them have been accepted. -- Miika Komu http://www.iki.fi/miika/ From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 27 06:18:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA093A6DE4; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:18:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.765 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.765 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZhV2Sblxk2V; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:18:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73EE23A6A30; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:18:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7FA23A6A2D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:18:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCMIoJy8RCyu for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68FBA3A6E11 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) id <0JWW00001IBYP6@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:16:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0JWW00GHFIBYJQ@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:16:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:18:32 -0500 From: James Galvin Subject: Re: this list is moving and being renamed as apps-discuss@ietf.org In-reply-to: <1F89301248E9910C82505D17@[192.168.1.3]> To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Message-id: <7B81BACEC96715CF3A4B06A6@[192.168.1.3]> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <1F89301248E9910C82505D17@[192.168.1.3]> X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org We've been asked to wait a few days before actually doing the cut-over. The cut-over has been scheduled for Friday, 29 February. Jim -- On Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:19 AM -0500 James Galvin wrote regarding this list is moving and being renamed as apps-discuss@ietf.org -- > The IESG has decided that all ietf.org mailing lists should be in > the ietf.org domain. In almost all cases this decision has no > effect and is invisible for all practical purposes. IETF hosted > mailing lists have always been valid in the ietf.org domain > regardless of their sub-domain. > > This mailing list is one of the very few exceptions, caused in > large part by the fact that the apps.ietf.org domain has been > delegated and hosted off-site, but the mailing lists were never > really delegated. In addition, the new infrastructure enforces > virtual domains while the old infrastructure did not. In > combination, these two facts are what caused the discuss list to > fail after the cut-over. > > We are aware that some mailing lists, this one included, are > listed in RFCs and other formal documents. For these lists > backwards compatibility will be maintained. > > This list has the additional problem of being named "discuss", > which was not a problem in the apps.ietf.org domain but is too > generic for use in the ietf.org domain. Therefore, this list > will be renamed as apps-discuss. > > The old archives will be left in place. The new archives will be > created and maintained by Mailman, although they will not be > accessible for a short while. > > The IETF has historically managed its own archives for its > mailing lists. This means we have home-grown scripts for > creating the text archives and the web archives. The web archive > script uses MHonArc. > > We are going to migrate all IETF hosted mailing lists to use the > Mailman archive system, leaving all old archives intact. Until > that change takes place, Mailman only archives will be > inaccessible. We expect this change to take place within the > next 2-3 weeks. Please be patient about accessing the archives > until that time. > > All subscribers of discuss@apps.ietf.org will be moved to > apps-discuss@ietf.org. A notice will be sent to the new list as > soon as the move is complete. This change will take place later > today. You may want to update any filters you have that depend > on this information now. > > For those who "remember" their Mailman password for the discuss > mailing list, you will need to set a new password for the > apps-discuss list using the usual Mailman process, after the new > list is operational > > Thanks, > > Jim > From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 03:23:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4973A6D7F; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:23:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.137 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XU8WmaRDJu0F; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:23:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 303A83A6B36; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:23:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4E33A6B36 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:23:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83CS-veOn5ft for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:23:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118463A6BFB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:23:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id AC5811C0160 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82201C00E0 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2E958ECC8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:23:18 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:05:27PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > There are solutions for some protocols (SSH keys of RFC 4251 or Host > Identifiers of HIP in RFC 4423 are two good examples) but no general > "identity layer" in the Internet architecture. An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5 lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network). From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 03:47:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FFA28C475; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:47:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.706, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GwstaebWg8o6; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30C83A6A13; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:47:16 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9CD3A6DCE for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:47:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1BZNBRnV4+o for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:47:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8345F3A68BF for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:47:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560888A727; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:47:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15637-01; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:46:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1708A4CD; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:46:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4A6644D556C; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:46:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:46:56 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5 > lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a > clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR > are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network). After several years in network management (where the first thing you like to have are stable unique identities), I have come to the conclusion that it is hopeless to search for such a generally useful identity. What works is all very much dependent on the purpose and the specific situation, as others have pointed out before. And even if someone manages to come up with a good solution, people sooner or later will try to circumvent it since in several situations it is a feature and not a bug to be able to do dirty things with identities. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 04:13:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0C128C42E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:13:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y6vXua6LE2tL; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:13:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A804C3A6E80; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:13:35 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C2B3A6E49 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:13:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RwtQ6nvuusFX for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:13:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from twilight.cs.hut.fi (twilight.cs.hut.fi [130.233.40.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C4C3A6E4E for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:13:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix, from userid 60001) id B2DD92E7D; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:01 +0200 (EET) X-Spam-Niksula: No Received: from kekkonen (kekkonen.cs.hut.fi [130.233.41.50]) by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FC9B2E77; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:12:56 +0200 (EET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:12:56 +0200 (EET) From: Miika Komu X-X-Sender: mkomu@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Subject: Re: Machine Identity In-Reply-To: <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> Message-ID: References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >> An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5 >> lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a >> clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR >> are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network). > > After several years in network management (where the first thing you > like to have are stable unique identities), I have come to the > conclusion that it is hopeless to search for such a generally useful > identity. What works is all very much dependent on the purpose and > the specific situation, as others have pointed out before. > > And even if someone manages to come up with a good solution, people > sooner or later will try to circumvent it since in several situations > it is a feature and not a bug to be able to do dirty things with > identities. Hi Juergen, sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. Please give some pointers to publications that back up your conclusion. -- Miika Komu http://www.iki.fi/miika/ From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 04:41:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081FB3A6E3B; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:41:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.701, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LkizoPMAsqtP; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81DB3A6DE1; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:41:00 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EC73A6DD6 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:40:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rzcao46MwjxI for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0023A6E2F for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:40:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338358A6E5; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21224-05; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002078A4A3; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:39 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id E26934D5818; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:40:38 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Miika Komu Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Miika Komu wrote: > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> >>> An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5 >>> lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a >>> clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR >>> are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network). >> >> After several years in network management (where the first thing you >> like to have are stable unique identities), I have come to the >> conclusion that it is hopeless to search for such a generally useful >> identity. What works is all very much dependent on the purpose and >> the specific situation, as others have pointed out before. >> >> And even if someone manages to come up with a good solution, people >> sooner or later will try to circumvent it since in several situations >> it is a feature and not a bug to be able to do dirty things with >> identities. > > Hi Juergen, > > sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. Please give some pointers to > publications that back up your conclusion. I don't know what you disagree with. - If it is my statement that it is hard to find a stable unique identifier that is generically useful, then simply proof me wrong by example. - If it is my statement that people will find reasons to muddle around with the uniqueness and stability property of whatever identifer you invent? I guess this is hard to proof so lets call it a hypothesis. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 05:35:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291E03A6E85; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:35:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.956, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kUGTvVsnAVEj; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:35:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA34628C3FF; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:35:00 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D518828C3FF for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:34:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1wjb7iv8z4-f for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:34:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F253A69A0 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:34:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 1A3DB22CD6; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:37 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-aa1febb000000b15-c4-47c6b381dc3b Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 019C22281F; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.170]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:36 +0100 Received: from [159.107.197.224] ([159.107.197.224]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:35 +0100 Message-ID: <47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:13:35 +0100 From: Balazs Lengyel User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2008 13:13:35.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9A5D120:01C87A0B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org IMHO virtualization, and programs like VmWare are one example where it is hard to say what are you trying to identify. The physical box or the virtual machine? Balazs > > - If it is my statement that people will find reasons to muddle around > with the uniqueness and stability property of whatever identifer you > invent? I guess this is hard to proof so lets call it a hypothesis. > > /js > From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 05:45:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061333A6ECE; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:45:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.613 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.986, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wNhkQM7nJBz4; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:45:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6963A6B34; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:45:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599313A6B34 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:45:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jthgZ2yDpb7Y for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from twilight.cs.hut.fi (twilight.cs.hut.fi [130.233.40.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FC83A6A40 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix, from userid 60001) id CACF42DE8; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:45:28 +0200 (EET) X-Spam-Niksula: No Received: from kekkonen (kekkonen.cs.hut.fi [130.233.41.50]) by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16322DA9; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:45:27 +0200 (EET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:45:27 +0200 (EET) From: Miika Komu X-X-Sender: mkomu@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Subject: Re: Machine Identity In-Reply-To: <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> Message-ID: References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Miika Komu wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:18PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >>> >>>> An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5 >>>> lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a >>>> clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR >>>> are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network). >>> >>> After several years in network management (where the first thing you >>> like to have are stable unique identities), I have come to the >>> conclusion that it is hopeless to search for such a generally useful >>> identity. What works is all very much dependent on the purpose and >>> the specific situation, as others have pointed out before. >>> >>> And even if someone manages to come up with a good solution, people >>> sooner or later will try to circumvent it since in several situations >>> it is a feature and not a bug to be able to do dirty things with >>> identities. >> >> Hi Juergen, >> >> sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. Please give some pointers to >> publications that back up your conclusion. > > I don't know what you disagree with. > > - If it is my statement that it is hard to find a stable unique > identifier that is generically useful, then simply proof me wrong > by example. > > - If it is my statement that people will find reasons to muddle around > with the uniqueness and stability property of whatever identifer you > invent? I guess this is hard to proof so lets call it a hypothesis. Hi, sorry, I misread the email first time. I agree that there is no single identity that suites all environments on all layers of the stack. -- Miika Komu http://www.iki.fi/miika/ From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 05:46:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCF73A6EAF; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:46:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kb-actNtDIvW; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1C13A6E95; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:46:36 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF623A6E95 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:46:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFTBF1Zm719x for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:46:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [194.1.163.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95093A6B95 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:46:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C820C40202D; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:41:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:41:22 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Balazs Lengyel Subject: Service Identity (Re: Machine Identity) References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> <47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig886B0A44846D6266E43E6055" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.92.1, clamav-milter version 0.92.1 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig886B0A44846D6266E43E6055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Balazs Lengyel wrote: > IMHO virtualization, and programs like VmWare are one example where it = > is hard to say what are you trying to identify. The physical box or the= =20 > virtual machine? One should identify the *service* That solves all the issues mentioned here. The service could be "your p2p app" but also "HTTP host a.example.com"=20 or "HTTP host b.example.com" etc. SSH Keys are a good example of this, they identify the SSH service. You=20 can find that service on IPv4 port 22 and IPv6 port 22, maybe on=20 different other IP addresses or other port numbers. Everytime you=20 connect to that service, you can communicate with it using the same=20 public key, as it's private key remains the same. Now if another SSH=20 service steals the IP address or port number, you will get a different=20 key to talk with. Solving this with HIP, but instead of "Host" making it "Service" based=20 would be great. Note that a lot of virtualization is service based, not really host=20 based. For that matter, the larger sites actually only care about=20 services: deploy 1000 HTTP proxies for site X, deploy 1000 crawler bots=20 for purpose Z etc. They really can't care less about the host itself,=20 that is just a place where the service runs. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig886B0A44846D6266E43E6055 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFHxroDKaooUjM+fCMRAhLsAJ9reWMLDQYyMCa14g78DFOlvL/FYQCgppdF KnHHYnjpFU5UJuwFqIZXUUQ= =Lz95 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig886B0A44846D6266E43E6055-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 06:02:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880A73A6EA1; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:02:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.19 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.409, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TN34tacL9-cO; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:02:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520413A6C37; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:02:55 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380B33A6E72 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:02:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4WjVzuazq2-a for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0A63A6BDE for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:02:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.43]) by QMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id v1do1Y0510vp7WLA600s00; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:02:17 +0000 Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id v22g1Y0044HwxpC8R00000; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:02:46 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ZM8n86p0LXsA:10 a=f0Xiuc7wd6U21qAg2NEA:9 a=TSYdQdqWoEZAggzdauoA:7 a=fJhfTmCN8wz_ZO4l3394P8moMLsA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=gi0PWCVxevcA:10 From: "David Harrington" To: "'Jeroen Massar'" , "'Balazs Lengyel'" References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local><47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Subject: RE: Service Identity (Re: Machine Identity) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:02:40 -0500 Message-ID: <0aea01c87a12$95cc8df0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ach6EFQn/k++gC/bSvC6keXuszYZXQAAJ5jA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 In-Reply-To: <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org I don't think that works very well. We can identify the SNMP service, but there might be multiple SNMP agents running on a device. And since different OSes have different ideas of processes, it can be difficult to identify different instances of the same service. (We tried to standardize facility in the syslog WG, and couldn't come up with a standard across operating systems.) In SNMPv3, we developed an identifier to identify each engine, but users actually prefer to model the network topology using the IP address, because when dealing with topology maps the purpose is to manage the devices in the network. If a device catches fire, you don't want to search through diagrams of virtual services; you want to know where the device is so you can put the fire out. ;-) As Juergen said, which identifier works best depends on what you are trying to do, and no single identifier will always be the best choice. David Harrington dbharrington@comcast.net ietfdbh@comcast.net dharrington@huawei.com > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:41 AM > To: Balazs Lengyel > Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org > Subject: Service Identity (Re: Machine Identity) > > Balazs Lengyel wrote: > > IMHO virtualization, and programs like VmWare are one > example where it > > is hard to say what are you trying to identify. The > physical box or the > > virtual machine? > > One should identify the *service* > > That solves all the issues mentioned here. > > The service could be "your p2p app" but also "HTTP host > a.example.com" > or "HTTP host b.example.com" etc. > > SSH Keys are a good example of this, they identify the SSH > service. You > can find that service on IPv4 port 22 and IPv6 port 22, maybe on > different other IP addresses or other port numbers. Everytime you > connect to that service, you can communicate with it using the same > public key, as it's private key remains the same. Now if another SSH > service steals the IP address or port number, you will get a > different > key to talk with. > > Solving this with HIP, but instead of "Host" making it > "Service" based > would be great. > > Note that a lot of virtualization is service based, not really host > based. For that matter, the larger sites actually only care about > services: deploy 1000 HTTP proxies for site X, deploy 1000 > crawler bots > for purpose Z etc. They really can't care less about the host itself, > that is just a place where the service runs. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 06:55:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267AD3A6EA3; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:55:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WTQTMgHz4KCS; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBAC03A6B6E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:55:43 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED163A6B6E for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:55:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-BR+sBZq3cI for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:55:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C495A3A6999 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:55:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B1DE40202D; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:55:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6CB64.9060704@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:55:32 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Harrington Subject: Re: Service Identity (Re: Machine Identity) References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local><47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <0aea01c87a12$95cc8df0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <0aea01c87a12$95cc8df0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig477BB6741DE8E7B70B3301B3" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.92.1, clamav-milter version 0.92.1 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig477BB6741DE8E7B70B3301B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David Harrington wrote: > In SNMPv3, we developed an identifier to identify each engine, but > users actually prefer to model the network topology using the IP > address, because when dealing with topology maps the purpose is to > manage the devices in the network.=20 With this whole identity stuff, people have to change their thinking and = start thinking outside the box (buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz-word :) IP is great for talking from A to B. Once A and B where hosts, now they=20 generally are virtual hosts, or even only a service. As such the "IP" here is a reasonable ID, as it represents the service. > If a device catches fire, you don't want to search through diagrams of > virtual services; you want to know where the device is so you can put > the fire out. ;-) >=20 > As Juergen said, which identifier works best depends on what you are > trying to do, and no single identifier will always be the best choice. It always depends on what you want to do, I fully agree, but for your=20 example the "SNMP service" you will be looking at are 2 services: - cpu load, memory usage etc, on the virtual device =3D> this is "SNMP service on vhost X" - temperature, harddisk status etc on the physical host =3D> this is "SNMP service on physical host Y" Those are two different services, not one, but two, and probably more. Most very likely vhost X has a different IP from host Y, thus using IP's = here is one way to go. The problem comes when the IP changes, your=20 service is still the same, but you based your ID on something which is=20 not a stable identifier. This is of course also all a similar problem with Multihoming and=20 Mobility etc. One day you are IP X the other moment you are IP Z. The real way to solve this is the Identity layer, and HIP provides just=20 that. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig477BB6741DE8E7B70B3301B3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFHxstkKaooUjM+fCMRAsIqAJsFAAJcAgoXV5s6p1Z3RR90LHOJmwCgpNxX auHBfktX4KhdCCgUywXVzaU= =Jeqn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig477BB6741DE8E7B70B3301B3-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 07:20:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C4C28C6F3; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:20:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.155 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HKLdS2pUmgPI; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:20:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F34B28C581; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:20:39 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534AD3A68E1 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:20:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OC2AmPNvbKMT for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BC628C581 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C6DF1C0168; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:20:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370C01C0167; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:20:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2656058ECC8; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:20:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:20:30 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Balazs Lengyel Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080228152030.GA16255@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> <47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:13:35PM +0100, Balazs Lengyel wrote a message of 10 lines which said: > what are you trying to identify. The physical box or the virtual > machine? The Unit of Management. It is here the virtual machine but, in other cases, it may be a cluster of tightly cooperating machines. From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:01:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D9428C8BB; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.280, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IeydnVA5dQlf; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66DB28C8AA; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:37 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFE228C729 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jM929mCW67Zi for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C37228C73D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-68-122-124-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.124.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1SG1IMF002856 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:23 -0800 Message-ID: <47C6DACE.1060506@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:18 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6024/Thu Feb 28 05:33:53 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:01:24 -0800 (PST) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:05:27PM +0100, > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote > a message of 19 lines which said: > >> There are solutions for some protocols (SSH keys of RFC 4251 or Host >> Identifiers of HIP in RFC 4423 are two good examples) but no general >> "identity layer" in the Internet architecture. > > An example of an Use Case is given by IKE (RFC 4306). Section 3.5 > lists several possible identities for a machine, and there is not a > clear unique way to define this identity (identities like ID_IPV4_ADDR > are typically a poor way to define a machine on the network). What I found was: "used for policy lookup... may be used by an implementation to perform access control decisions" That means that the identifier must be persistent and public, I believe. It's unlikely that a statistically rare (rather than unique) identifier would be acceptable for this. That means a uniqueness registration process is required. Domain names satisfy these requirements. So what's wrong with using them for the applications you have in mind? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:05:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D596E28C729; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:05:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.696, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ToTaxWAbuRsw; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:05:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845233A6E73; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:05:15 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA1228C6F2 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:05:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fz9KRa4ROQ9e for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:05:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61DD3A6EB5 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:05:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB998A7D0; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:05:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11545-07-43; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:04:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D480E8A71E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:04:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id C07604D5D97; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:04:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:04:22 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Service Identity (Re: Machine Identity) Message-ID: <20080228160422.GK8852@elstar.local> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <0aea01c87a12$95cc8df0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <47C6CB64.9060704@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C6CB64.9060704@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.3.3 (20050822) at jacobs-university.de Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:55:32PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Most very likely vhost X has a different IP from host Y, thus using IP's > here is one way to go. The problem comes when the IP changes, your service > is still the same, but you based your ID on something which is not a stable > identifier. > > This is of course also all a similar problem with Multihoming and Mobility > etc. One day you are IP X the other moment you are IP Z. > > The real way to solve this is the Identity layer, and HIP provides just > that. Some 10+ years ago, SNMP decoupled the identity of an SNMP service from the transport used to access the service by introducing the notion of an engineID. It was architecturally the right thing to do. At that time, people hoped that management applications would at start using engineIDs since they are architecturally the right thing to deal with proxies, NATs and all sort of issues. Ten years later, we must simply observe that this did not happen. Perhaps HIP as a more general solution to this problem has more luck. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:24:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C02528C902; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:24:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0HfVF+OrhtXx; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:24:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF7F28C8F3; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:24:10 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4957B28C7E4 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:24:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hQKKnSXZTLTp for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:24:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D963328C908 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:23:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id AD3EF1C00FF; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:23:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81F81C0167; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:23:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7A858ECCF; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:23:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:23:04 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Miika Komu Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080228162304.GB21463@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <20080226142754.GA12093@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:40AM +0200, Miika Komu wrote a message of 39 lines which said: > While waiting for changes to libc, the DNS interaction can be > accomplished by running a DNS proxy in the localhost that can do the > HIP magic. Hold on, I did not want to actually use the HIP protocol. I was just thinking aloud about wether it was possible to use Host Identities in an ordinary application (regardless of wether HIP was running or not). For instance, suppose we were redesigning SSH from scratch, would it be possible / would it make sense to use Host Identities instead of SSH-specific keys? From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:34:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B6C3A6E77; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:34:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.191 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qhs3JjRowH9N; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A043A6C6A; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:34:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745553A6BF5 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:34:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JVP8BkBsY93P for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B813A6997 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A5621C013A; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:34:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751AD1C0132; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:34:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D9158E9F2; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:34:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:34:23 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080228163423.GC21463@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> <47C46FBA.2090009@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C46FBA.2090009@dcrocker.net> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote a message of 37 lines which said: > Rather than asking about your requirements, I'll ask about the uses > you have in mind. My original thinking was about a P2P system. Entities (I could have used the term "machines" but it seems to mislead people in physical machines only) request things (for instance, files) from other entities and give things to others. In doing so, they build a reputation ("leecher" or "nice guy"). This reputation is tied to their identity. Hence the desire to have an identity which is not too transient (IP addresses are not stable over time and a machine can legitimately have several, for instance one v4 and one v6). Of course, an entity must not be able to take the identity of another one, for instance to steal its reputation. Hence the need for authentication. On the other hand, being able to generate a lot of identities is not a problem: an entity which would do so would start at a reputation of zero, which is not its interest. From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:40:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D573A6BAA; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:40:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6e1pWo3cMUXR; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:40:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292DB28C69E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:40:07 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34123A6A8D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:40:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGAYl+7VvecP for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:40:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F6528C892 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:38:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F29C740202D; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:38:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6E396.3020500@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:38:46 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> <47C46FBA.2090009@dcrocker.net> <20080228163423.GC21463@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080228163423.GC21463@nic.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7125C0B7ADADB66C0C55B3DB" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.92.1, clamav-milter version 0.92.1 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7125C0B7ADADB66C0C55B3DB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: [..] > On the other hand, being able to generate a lot of identities is not a > problem: an entity which would do so would start at a reputation of > zero, which is not its interest. Trust..... OpenPGP ? :) I always like to point to www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html in these cas= es. As such, SSH-keys, HIP and OpenPGP are items you can use already for=20 this, the latter already has trust built in thus seems suitable for your = use. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig7125C0B7ADADB66C0C55B3DB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFHxuOYKaooUjM+fCMRAjMWAKCeXGQjOnm1iyZ16gtgD0IVBbDMVQCdHKID qb3Mg5lYa7F2TqLkXn76GIA= =ZxlA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7125C0B7ADADB66C0C55B3DB-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:41:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879B43A69A0; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RFz05fZRjo4V; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5963228C42E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:01 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D89028C4D6 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hL9spT-i6eSS for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7261F28C73A for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2411E40202E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:40:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6E40D.8060002@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:40:45 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Subject: Re: Service Identity (Re: Machine Identity) References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <0aea01c87a12$95cc8df0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <47C6CB64.9060704@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <20080228160422.GK8852@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20080228160422.GK8852@elstar.local> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4AFE0B5262F4AD26F9360DD2" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.92.1, clamav-milter version 0.92.1 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4AFE0B5262F4AD26F9360DD2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: [..] > Some 10+ years ago, SNMP decoupled the identity of an SNMP service > from the transport used to access the service by introducing the > notion of an engineID. It was architecturally the right thing to > do. At that time, people hoped that management applications would at > start using engineIDs since they are architecturally the right thing > to deal with proxies, NATs and all sort of issues. Ten years later, we > must simply observe that this did not happen. Perhaps HIP as a more > general solution to this problem has more luck. I don't think that programs are going to adopt this, simply because the=20 programmers don't know about it and because there is no easy way to have = it available on the platforms they want to program for. If there was a=20 simple API for this which worked on all platforms and had a BSD license=20 + commercial licenses if needed then it would help quite a bit, still=20 though changing people, hard thing. I would love to, but unfortunately I don't see it happening. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig4AFE0B5262F4AD26F9360DD2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFHxuQNKaooUjM+fCMRArMiAJ9OAwa+a4chC1Um6LcpE1xFRmDxFgCgv+Nz TYRb21Z0m0Yb02+rvEU3Daw= =pYn+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4AFE0B5262F4AD26F9360DD2-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:41:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B00328C858; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.208 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s261tHzw3VEl; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0670928C7B8; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5ED28C7CD for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLTi80TBUFMe for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB7828C7B8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 652F11C013B; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:41:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601EC1C00FE; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:41:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D1358E9F2; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:41:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:41:31 +0100 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Machine Identity Message-ID: <20080228164131.GD21463@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-6-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:06AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote a message of 31 lines which said: > Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? I agree with the reasons given by Keith Moore (a machine does not control its domain name). From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:51:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8897228C91C; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:51:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id al2Sq1kQWp1n; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:51:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C562C28C900; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:51:41 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA1828C910 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:51:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpMZwOAX2OUB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:51:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E279328C8A0 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:51:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 798C840202E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:51:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6E694.3070101@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:51:32 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <20080228164131.GD21463@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080228164131.GD21463@nic.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigAEC4DF64877D2B5E3EA50EE4" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.92.1, clamav-milter version 0.92.1 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigAEC4DF64877D2B5E3EA50EE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:06AM -0800, > Dave Crocker wrote=20 > a message of 31 lines which said: >=20 >> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind?= >=20 > I agree with the reasons given by Keith Moore (a machine does not > control its domain name). More importantly: the service can't be anonymous then. Greets, Jeroen --------------enigAEC4DF64877D2B5E3EA50EE4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFHxuaUKaooUjM+fCMRAp2IAKCorJciljB9Zfe7KdHOLbYFcg1DewCfZSso +Upug9Y7BEK8aof/7MQcb3o= =jqm1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigAEC4DF64877D2B5E3EA50EE4-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 08:54:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC7228C96C; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:54:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.713 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.713 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.886, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MpcqgqV-80gJ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:54:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3E53A6C03; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:54:09 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E32A528C965 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:54:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NM2h0NM0+OYI for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:54:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from twilight.cs.hut.fi (twilight.cs.hut.fi [130.233.40.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F69728C8BB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:53:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix, from userid 60001) id 84CE12E3B; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:53:26 +0200 (EET) X-Spam-Niksula: No Received: from kekkonen (kekkonen.cs.hut.fi [130.233.41.50]) by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4831E2E4E; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:53:22 +0200 (EET) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:53:22 +0200 (EET) From: Miika Komu X-X-Sender: mkomu@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity In-Reply-To: <20080228162304.GB21463@nic.fr> Message-ID: References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C4101B.6050206@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <20080226142754.GA12093@nic.fr> <20080228162304.GB21463@nic.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:40AM +0200, > Miika Komu wrote > a message of 39 lines which said: > >> While waiting for changes to libc, the DNS interaction can be >> accomplished by running a DNS proxy in the localhost that can do the >> HIP magic. > > Hold on, I did not want to actually use the HIP protocol. I was just > thinking aloud about wether it was possible to use Host Identities in > an ordinary application (regardless of wether HIP was running or not). A research proposal called "Unmanaged Internet Protocol" does something like this: http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/papers/uia:osdi06.pdf The "personal identitities" of UIA are really just an extension of Host Identities as experiments in another previous year publication indicate: http://www.iki.fi/miika/docs/f17-komu.pdf > For instance, suppose we were redesigning SSH from scratch, would it > be possible / would it make sense to use Host Identities instead of > SSH-specific keys? IMHO yes. -- Miika Komu http://www.iki.fi/miika/ From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 09:33:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB5228C83B; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.863 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KVnbHq11GOqu; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E63D3A69F0; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:27 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4021C3A69C7 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19JwR94CEggu for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0135C3A6A4D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-68-122-124-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.124.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1SHWpYR006503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:32:56 -0800 Message-ID: <47C6F044.8000901@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:32:52 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <20080228164131.GD21463@nic.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080228164131.GD21463@nic.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6027/Thu Feb 28 08:20:09 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:32:57 -0800 (PST) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? > > I agree with the reasons given by Keith Moore (a machine does not > control its domain name). The requirements you have provided mean that there must be a global, persistent registration service. As you go through the effort of specifying a new global registration service, make sure to deal with the obvious questions: 1. What makes the proposed mechanism superior to the DNS registration service? 2, What is the basis for believing that the proposed service will overcome the massive barriers to adoption that have, so far, plagued most proposals for adding to the Internet's infrastructure services? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 09:36:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01E628C7FE; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIesgsyJE0GQ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958CA28C831; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:38 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BC628C809 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hHoA+j6PF1Td for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087053A6A0E for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-68-122-124-32.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.124.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1SHaIYq006625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:23 -0800 Message-ID: <47C6F112.4010503@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:18 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <20080228164131.GD21463@nic.fr> <47C6E694.3070101@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <47C6E694.3070101@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6027/Thu Feb 28 08:20:09 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:36:23 -0800 (PST) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Jeroen Massar wrote: > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:06AM -0800, >> Dave Crocker wrote a message of 31 lines which said: >> >>> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in mind? >> >> I agree with the reasons given by Keith Moore (a machine does not >> control its domain name). > > More importantly: the service can't be anonymous then. 1. The stateed use is for application of policies, such as access control. How can that be done in the face of anonymity? 2. In other words, please specify the details of anonymity that you require. 3. Please look at: specifically sections 3.1.5, d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 09:44:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF9928C831; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:44:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.754 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.845, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7A0mM7kW1az; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:44:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E96428C4AB; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:44:38 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706BF3A699D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:44:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IHfJDZbEAjbM for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:44:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8293A6BDB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:44:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JUmno-0008JG-4U for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:44:16 +0000 Received: from 1cust10.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.10.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:44:16 +0000 Received: from nobody by 1cust10.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:44:16 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: discuss@apps.ietf.org From: "Frank Ellermann" Subject: Re: Machine Identity Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:45:37 +0100 Organization: Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net><20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr><20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust10.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Ellermann List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > I don't know what you disagree with.=20 Indeed. > If it is my statement that people will find reasons to muddle around > with the uniqueness and stability property of whatever identifer you > invent? I guess this is hard to proof so lets call it a hypothesis. Maybe RFC 4122 (UUID) supports your hypothesis. =20 Frank From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 09:53:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1876428C881; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:53:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VFSuJ8WKXkXk; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FDF28C5AC; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:53:23 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7F528C1AB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:53:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90WZk2fAWUv7 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from abaddon.unfix.org (abaddon.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3007328C4AB for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAD4F40202D; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:52:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47C6F4D3.2070901@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:52:19 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dcrocker@bbiw.net Subject: Re: Machine Identity References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <47C45C52.8010705@dcrocker.net> <20080228164131.GD21463@nic.fr> <47C6E694.3070101@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <47C6F112.4010503@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <47C6F112.4010503@dcrocker.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig438909844FAB0C7D9D53A448" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.92.1, clamav-milter version 0.92.1 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig438909844FAB0C7D9D53A448 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dave Crocker wrote: >=20 >=20 > Jeroen Massar wrote: >> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:37:06AM -0800, >>> Dave Crocker wrote a message of 31 lines which=20 >>> said: >>> >>>> Why isn't a Domain Name sufficient to the purpose you have in min= d? >>> >>> I agree with the reasons given by Keith Moore (a machine does not >>> control its domain name). >> >> More importantly: the service can't be anonymous then. >=20 >=20 > 1. The stateed use is for application of policies, such as access=20 > control. How can that be done in the face of anonymity? Anonymity in that nothing is registered and can't directly be correlated = to a certain person (of course you can track IP addresses and use that=20 etc to look in other log files etc). If you take for instance an SSH key. This SSH key 'proves' that the SSH=20 service that has the private key, is the same one as the one you talked=20 to last time. Still it is quite anonymous, as you don't have any hooks=20 to domain names or other details where whois comes into play. > 2. In other words, please specify the details of anonymity that you=20 > require. Nothing is truly anonymous, ever. If somebody wants to find out who you=20 are they will find out, if you like it or not. > 3. Please look at: >=20 > >=20 > specifically sections 3.1.5, That is what I meant with 1) DKIM indeed 'comes up' with a pub/priv keypair out of thin air, like=20 SSH. When you talk to the host again you do know that you are talking to = the same host and not a different one, but they are still anonymous. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig438909844FAB0C7D9D53A448 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFHxvTTKaooUjM+fCMRAm4+AJ9iXln5XIhsCPbHGbTMxWNTP3VnEwCgl1N9 Wj4caWdh3E8TTZwhUFKzEY0= =n8Sg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig438909844FAB0C7D9D53A448-- From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 11:59:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8FE28C3BC; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:59:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.996 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6d5AhoDNDaiD; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:59:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D9C3A68EE; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:59:32 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C4A28C1FF for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:59:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0M-3guIwcViv for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:59:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA [216.46.5.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE253A68EE for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:59:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA13539; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:59:17 -0500 (EST) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200802281959.OAA13539@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies. Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:55:42 -0500 (EST) To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Subject: Re: Machine Identity In-Reply-To: <20080228163423.GC21463@nic.fr> References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <200802261547.KAA20917@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <20080226160412.GA22833@nic.fr> <47C46FBA.2090009@dcrocker.net> <20080228163423.GC21463@nic.fr> X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org > Of course, an entity must not be able to take the identity of another > one, for instance to steal its reputation. Hence the need for > authentication. That's extremely hard, unless you add "...without the cooperation of the entity whose identity is being copied" to the end of the first sentence. > On the other hand, being able to generate a lot of identities is not > a problem: an entity which would do so would start at a reputation of > zero, which is not its interest. It is if that entity's own reputation is negative. This, for example, is why spammers register throwaway domains. In your P2P example, think serious leechers. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 12:38:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3115228C1FB; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:38:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OU40po2Uqb9l; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6027428C125; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:38:27 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EA33A6C6C for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:38:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ouhx+hHDK0B0 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:38:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.155.182.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BE028C7B8 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) id <0JWY00201UJIGP@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:35:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0JWY00ODGUJHER@elistx.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:35:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:37:32 -0500 From: James Galvin Subject: Re: this list is moving and being renamed as apps-discuss@ietf.org In-reply-to: <7B81BACEC96715CF3A4B06A6@[192.168.1.3]> To: discuss@apps.ietf.org Message-id: <98300BD61E71232B4511C3B5@[192.168.1.3]> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <1F89301248E9910C82505D17@[192.168.1.3]> <7B81BACEC96715CF3A4B06A6@[192.168.1.3]> X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org This list will be cut-over from discuss@apps.ietf.org to apps-discuss@ietf.org at 2200 UTC on Friday, 29 February. There will be no visible change in the archive and it will remain accessible. Messages to the old address will be forwarded to the new address but folks should use the new address after the cut-over. I will announce when the cut-over has been completed. Jim -- On Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:18 AM -0500 James Galvin wrote regarding Re: this list is moving and being renamed as apps-discuss@ietf.org -- > We've been asked to wait a few days before actually doing the > cut-over. The cut-over has been scheduled for Friday, 29 > February. > > Jim > > > > -- On Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:19 AM -0500 James Galvin > wrote regarding this list is moving > and being renamed as apps-discuss@ietf.org -- > > > The IESG has decided that all ietf.org mailing lists should be > > in the ietf.org domain. In almost all cases this decision has > > no effect and is invisible for all practical purposes. IETF > > hosted mailing lists have always been valid in the ietf.org > > domain regardless of their sub-domain. > > > > This mailing list is one of the very few exceptions, caused in > > large part by the fact that the apps.ietf.org domain has been > > delegated and hosted off-site, but the mailing lists were never > > really delegated. In addition, the new infrastructure enforces > > virtual domains while the old infrastructure did not. In > > combination, these two facts are what caused the discuss list to > > fail after the cut-over. > > > > We are aware that some mailing lists, this one included, are > > listed in RFCs and other formal documents. For these lists > > backwards compatibility will be maintained. > > > > This list has the additional problem of being named "discuss", > > which was not a problem in the apps.ietf.org domain but is too > > generic for use in the ietf.org domain. Therefore, this list > > will be renamed as apps-discuss. > > > > The old archives will be left in place. The new archives will > > be created and maintained by Mailman, although they will not be > > accessible for a short while. > > > > The IETF has historically managed its own archives for its > > mailing lists. This means we have home-grown scripts for > > creating the text archives and the web archives. The web > > archive script uses MHonArc. > > > > We are going to migrate all IETF hosted mailing lists to use the > > Mailman archive system, leaving all old archives intact. Until > > that change takes place, Mailman only archives will be > > inaccessible. We expect this change to take place within the > > next 2-3 weeks. Please be patient about accessing the archives > > until that time. > > > > All subscribers of discuss@apps.ietf.org will be moved to > > apps-discuss@ietf.org. A notice will be sent to the new list as > > soon as the move is complete. This change will take place later > > today. You may want to update any filters you have that depend > > on this information now. > > > > For those who "remember" their Mailman password for the discuss > > mailing list, you will need to set a new password for the > > apps-discuss list using the usual Mailman process, after the new > > list is operational > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jim > > > > From discuss-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 28 12:53:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCE128C301; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:53:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D2E1jWTispvD; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:53:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626DB28C881; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:53:46 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021B928C1A0 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:53:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4TwPfy351pHW for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:53:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566D828C2D3 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:52:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.21.202.153] (nat-dip5.fw.corp.yahoo.com [209.131.62.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1SKqQMp015942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:52:39 -0800 Message-ID: <47C71F0B.5030000@dcrocker.net> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:52:27 -0800 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: Service Identity (Re: Machine Identity) References: <20080226130527.GA1404@generic-nic.net> <20080228112318.GA23196@nic.fr> <20080228114656.GD8439@elstar.local> <20080228124038.GA8852@elstar.local> <47C6B37F.2050505@ericsson.com> <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <47C6BA02.9090000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6030/Thu Feb 28 11:36:36 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:52:39 -0800 (PST) Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org X-BeenThere: discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: discuss-bounces@ietf.org Jeroen Massar wrote: > Balazs Lengyel wrote: >> IMHO virtualization, and programs like VmWare are one example where it >> is hard to say what are you trying to identify. The physical box or >> the virtual machine? > > One should identify the *service* Clearly there are cases where it is, in fact, a physical machine that is of interest. But your point is quite well taken. Most scenarios care about an abstraction, not something physical. Whether that is a logical process, a logical application, a logical host, or an "organization" becomes the question. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net