Subject: Re: [sfc] I-D Action: draft-xue-sfc-address-sharing-in-sfc-use-cases-00.txt

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:40:10 -0500

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your comments. I think you forgot to cc it to the list :-)

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>wrote:

> Reading this, it appears that youa re asserting that service functions in
> a service chain environment must be able to decrypt subscriber encrypted
> https traffic.
>
> I agree that encryption makes applying content functions harder.
>
> But the IETF is not going to mandate operator based decryption of
> end-to-end encrypted content.  Doing so would seem to require that we
> violate existing RFCs and weaken the effective crypto.  For example, it is
> simply not acceptable to require that customers accept operator
> certificates in place of content provider certificates.  (Some customers
> may choose to accept those, but we clear can not mandate such.)
>
>
In fact we carried this text from Broadband Forum Document SD-326 on
flexible service chaining, Section 6.2.2.
We did not intend to hint on an IETF solution. SD-326 also says that the
solution is out of scope.

> Separately, the content of the document does not seem to match the title.
>  Based on the title I was expecting to see a discussion of the problems
> caused by address sharing.  (Such problems are part of the motivation for
> subscriber identification metadata.)  But instead there is a description of
> some use cases for residential network service, without any discussion I
> could find of address sharing.  What did I miss.
>
>
I think the description is there but may be it needs to be clarified which
we will do in the next version.

Regards,

Behcet

> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 4/21/14, 3:56 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>
>>
>>          Title           : Host Identification Problem in Service
>> Function Chaining Use Cases
>>          Authors         : Li Xue
>>                            Behcet Sarikaya
>>         Filename        : draft-xue-sfc-address-sharing-
>> in-sfc-use-cases-00.txt
>>         Pages           : 7
>>         Date            : 2014-04-21
>>
>> Abstract:
>>     The purpose of this document is to present host identification
>>     problem due to the address and prefix sharing in service function
>>     chaining.  So far we have identified this problem in the two use
>>     cases of the parental control service and offloading service but it
>>     is likely that more use cases can be identified.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xue-sfc-address-
>> sharing-in-sfc-use-cases/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xue-sfc-address-sharing-
>> in-sfc-use-cases-00
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>
>>