[saag] Re: [nasr] Re: Re: Re: Re: NASR BOF Follo w-Up
Luigi IANNONE <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
From: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 6:32 PM To: Luigi IANNONE <[email protected]> Cc: Watson Ladd <[email protected]>; Meiling Chen <[email protected]>; Henk Birkholz <[email protected]>; Liuchunchi <[email protected]>; Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>; [email protected]; IETF SAAG <[email protected]>; Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nasr] Re: [saag] Re: Re: Re: NASR BOF Follow-Up On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 12:52 AM Luigi IANNONE <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Watson, > > Correct. Some claims are easy to verify. Most aren't. Statements that "the > router supports X" aren't really interesting. Statements that "this > configuration will never pass your traffic over a bad link" are, but are a lot > harder to show. > > > [LI] Agreed. This is a very claim hard show/attest. Note however that this is not what NASR is trying to do. NASR is more about router has feature X, Y, and Z which is what I want, and that traffic goes through the selected routers that support X, Y and Z. NASR is not about proving that traffic does not go somewhere else (proof of non-transit is out of scope). As I understood the presentations, you wanted to make claims like: * This traffic was sent over an encrypted link [LI] No. NASR is not about encryption. Your traffic will be protected with end-to-end encryption which is out of scope and developed elsewhere. The use of MACSEC (as you mention in another email) is a possible property the you may wish to use but is part of NASR as any other claim you want to satisfy. * All traffic to address X will be sent over an encrypted link [LI] Identification of traffic is not restricted just to “destination address X”. As for the encrypted link see my previous comment. * This traffic is not being sent to a spanning port or otherwise available for monitoring [LI] This is a declination of the proof of non-transit, which is out of scope. Correct? [LI] I think there is still some confusion. ;-) Ciao L. -Ekr -Ekr Ciao L. _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]