Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> Both here and in 3.5.2.1: Why is encryption SHOULD, and not MUST? >> Looking ahead to 3.5.2.1, how could it be considered safe to use a >> network configuration protocol across administrative boundaries >> without encryption?
> Input please, or else you will see this as an open issue in Chicago.
> Personal opinion: encryption should be a MUST.
I believe that we will have situations where we have a secured ACP into a NOC
(to an edge router or VM hypervisor), and then we will have some unencrypted,
but secured links to platforms in transition.
It will be easy to add the GRASP daemon to answer resource requests to the
platform, but hard to add the ACP to that platform without a forklift
upgrade.
This is why I think it is a SHOULD, as much as I want it to transition to
being a MUST.
>> The other question is whether there are any restrictions on what
>> Unicode characters can be represented. You make the colon a special
>> character but give no other restrictions, so an objective name could
>> include space characters (and various related Unicode characters such
>> as tab, EN SPACE, ZERO WIDTH SPACE, and ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER),
>> control characters (FORM FEED, CARRIAGE RETURN, and the like),
> Once we specify byte-by-byte comparison, do we need to worry about this
> in a protocol document? If someone is silly enough to specify an
It matters, when humans have to confirm things. I think that objectives
will be mostly baked into code. So, I agree with you, but I would rather
exclude all that UTF stuff too.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
