Subject: Re: [sfc] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 22:02:31 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

>From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Jun 8, 2015 6:45 PM
>To: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [sfc] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-architecture-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
...
>Further, BCP61 says “ensure that IETF standard protocols have
>the necessary features to provide appropriate security for the
>application as it may be used across the Internet” — and this
>architecture is not defining an application that is used across
>the Internet.

Are you arguing that in the context of BCP61, this architecture
should be understood as an implicit applicability statement,
effectively mandating that SFC should not be used across the
Internet or across networks where eavesdropping / monitoring
is a possibility?

Randy

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 01:00:32 +0000

Hi,

> On Jun 9, 2015, at 1:02 AM, Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi -
> 

As the SFC architecture is transport agnostic and the SFC encapsulation can be transported over IP, the SFC encap (including metadata and payload) can be protected by existing means. This is already covered in the document. This would apply to for example inter-DC links. The comment is in the context of protecting at the SFC encapsulation layer.

Thank,

— Carlos.

> 
> Randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc