Subject: [mpls] Stephen Farrell's Block on charter-ietf-mpls-05-01: (with BLOCK)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 06:34:34 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-mpls-05-01: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mpls/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just one little innocent question:-)

This says:

-   Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
    and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.

and

-   Document mechanisms for securing MPLS networks in coordination
    with the KARP working group.

Karp is precluded from considering confidentiality and its charter
doesn't mention privacy.

Assuming that MPLS might be used e.g. near the endpoints of
transatlantic fibres, (is it?) do you think the WG might be open 
to considering work on confidentiality/privacy, perpaps even on
opportunistic encryption or the like? I guess one could argue
that there are requirements there that have only recently 
become clear.

If this will go for external review I'm fine with asking the question
on [email-masked] and will unblock.

If not, I'd appreciate a quick chat about this before I unblock.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:44:42 +0100

Hi Stephen,

> Karp is precluded from considering confidentiality and its charter

Right. That makes the second bullet in your quote true and accurate.

> on [email-masked] and will unblock.

I am asking that this does not go for external review so...

> If not, I'd appreciate a quick chat about this before I unblock.

The issue of confidentiality and privacy is definitely worth talking about, both for the control plane and for the data plane. 

I don't think we can drop a charter task in out of the blue since there is no evidence the WG wants to work on this. However, if the scenarios and high-level requirements were written up in an I-D it would:
- fit within the first bullet you quoted and so be within scope for 
  WG discussions
- possibly lead to a future recharter with a specific action

OK?

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:50:04 +0100

On 08/15/2013 03:44 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> transatlantic fibres, (is it?) do you think the WG might be open to
>> considering work on confidentiality/privacy, perpaps even on 
>> opportunistic encryption or the like? I guess one could argue that
>> there are requirements there that have only recently become clear.
>> 
>> If this will go for external review I'm fine with asking the
>> question on [email-masked] and will unblock.
> 
> The issue of confidentiality and privacy is definitely worth talking
> about, both for the control plane and for the data plane.

Great.

> I don't think we can drop a charter task in out of the blue since
> there is no evidence the WG wants to work on this. 

I agree.

> However, if the
> scenarios and high-level requirements were written up in an I-D it
> would: - fit within the first bullet you quoted and so be within
> scope for WG discussions - possibly lead to a future recharter with a
> specific action
> 
> OK?

Yes. However, I'm sure that I don't know what'd be a good
set of even high-level requirements. But I am quite happy
to try work with others on that if it helps.

I'll s/block/comment/ and we can chat on the call if
we're still in chatting mood when we get to that. Or
later if we're all chatted out today.

Thanks,
S.

> Cheers, Adrian