On Tue, 23 Jul, 2024, 02:50 Scott Johnson, <sc...@spacelypackets.com> wrote:
> Hi Ben, > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2024, Ben Schwartz wrote: > > > This document seems to propose that "https" URLs will route through > > "route through" is exactly what is not happening here. https will be > secure to the edge of the IP network, which is the limit of the local IP > transaction. > > > gateways that terminate end-to-end security, destroying the "https" > > scheme's confidentiality and integrity properties. > > BPSEC picks up the slack here, as soon as the request details are placed > in a bundle for transit of the space network segments. > A new https request is created on the remote end from the data in the > bundle. > > End to end IP, particularly to anywhere more remote than the Moon, is a > practical impossibility; hence, security measures must be limited in scope > to the networks they traverse. > > > That's a red flag > > for me. > > It would be for me too if what I am proposing were the same as what you > are describing. > > > Rather than trying to retrofit compatibility with existing terrestrial > > protocols into this (hypothetical and quite distant) scenario, I think > > we would be better served by developing protocols that serve real > > demands today, and delaying other technical solutions until real demand > > appears. > > Thanks for your feedback on that. The truth is, we have most of what we > need already for mostly robotic missions. You may find the 100 year > vision of the Interplanetary Chapter of ISOC interesting: > https://www.ipnsig.org > > As to real demand, an intimate knowledge of the players and their > capabilities, as well as those proposed specifications for Lunar networks, > leads me to conclude that it will be difficult to get this finished and > shiny to a stage where it is viable for flight use before it is necessary. > True, the demands of Lunar colonization are different than near term > needs, but the need for IP networking there had thusfar not been > challenged, nor has the need for BP based DTN in some instances, and > definitely between terrestrial and Lunar IP networks. Why not ship the A route server to the skies, ask the rest of the alphabets on the ground to mirror it on weekends to provide all week DNS route service on the ground, updated, with two digit latency? A small part of the A on the sky could also serially serve the IPNs, especially those on the sky that don't have an everyday need to bounce signals back and forth with the computers on the ground? The sky is above ground ! We can't have > little Timmy in the basement taking over construction machines on the > Moon, can we? If Timmy has no route to the Lunar IP network, this is not > an issue. Meanwhile, we wish to enable a IP native services on the Moon, > while allowing viably delay tolerant IP applications best-effort > interoperability with terrestrial services. Given the Adopt, Adapt, > Author order of preference in engineering solutions promoted by LOGIC > (https://logic.jhuapl.edu), it seems assmebling the lego blocks we > already > have into a solution, where possible, is the preferred path. > > Don't get me wrong; If someone offers me a big enough check, I _may_ find > something else to do with my time, but for now, I manage to feed my kids > with pure research and development like this, so I think I am going to > keep at it ;) > > Thanks, > ScottJ > > > > > > --Ben > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Nordgren, Bryce - FS, MT > > <bryce.l.nordgren=40usda....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:42 PM > > To: Scott Johnson <sc...@spacelypackets.com>; d...@ietf.org > > <d...@ietf.org>; dnsop@ietf.org <dnsop@ietf.org> > > Cc: ipnsig...@googlegroups.com <ipnsig...@googlegroups.com>; > > awg-ipn...@googlegroups.com <awg-ipn...@googlegroups.com> > > Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [dtn] An Interplanetary DNS Model > > Just spitballing, but instead of a new TLD, what about > > "{earth,moon,mars}. sol. arpa" as your suffix? This seems like it's > > right in the wheelhouse of the "Address Resolution Parameter Area". . . > > https: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/. arpa > > Just spitballing, but instead of a new TLD, what about > > "{earth,moon,mars}.sol.arpa" as your suffix? > > > > This seems like it's right in the wheelhouse of the "Address Resolution > > Parameter Area"... > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.arpa > > > > > > > > Forest Service Shield > > > > Bryce Nordgren, FRIT > > Physical Scientist > > > > Forest Service > > > > Missoula Fire Science Lab > > > > p: 406-829-6955 > > c: 406-396-4147 > > bryce.l.nordg...@usda.gov > > > > 5775 Hwy 10 W > > Missoula, MT 59808 > > www.fs.fed.us > > USDA Logo Forest Service Twitter USDA Facebook > > > > Caring for the land and serving people > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Scott Johnson <sc...@spacelypackets.com> > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 3:00 AM > > To: d...@ietf.org <d...@ietf.org>; dnsop@ietf.org <dnsop@ietf.org> > > Cc: ipnsig...@googlegroups.com <ipnsig...@googlegroups.com>; > > awg-ipn...@googlegroups.com <awg-ipn...@googlegroups.com> > > Subject: [dtn] An Interplanetary DNS Model > > Hi Everyone, > > > > Sorry for the 4-way cross posting, but I wanted to reach all of those > > parties who may have interest. > > > > I have published an internet-draft version of a document I have been > > privately publishing, in order that the community may understand, pick > > apart, improve, and fill in the blanks. This is in response to > > community > > interest and related efforts, in order that we best arrive at a > > standardized practice and architecture for Interplanetary Internet > > communications. I welcome and look forward to comments which could > > help > > us reach this laudable goal. I am not sure of the exact venue for WG > > adoption, given the scope of the concepts. As such will I refrain from > > asking for WG adoption at this time, pending discussion from the DTN > > and > > DNS communities. > > > > Please find the draft here: > > https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdata > > tracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-johnson-interplanetary-dns%2F&data=05% > > 7C02%7Cbryce.l.nordgren%40usda.gov%7Ca6aa16d3a3434c34031208dcaa2d44ba > > %7Ced5b36e701ee4ebc867ee03cfa0d4697%7C1%7C0%7C638572358631001081%7CUn > > known%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha > > WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BTPmN%2B7FDxrLZPRDDZZoD6YNKHG1d5 > > ROtFlDjqZg1Vs%3D&reserved=0 > > > > I would also be interested in revisiting Marc Blanchet's smtp and http > > over BP related drafts in the light of the above document, to see if > > adaptation can be made to make these efforts dovetail together. > > > > Thanks to all, > > Scott Johnson > > Spacely Packets, LCC > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dtn mailing list -- d...@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to dtn-le...@ietf.org > > > > > > > > > > This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA > > solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of > > this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains > > may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal > > penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, > > please notify the sender and delete the email immediately. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "IPNSIGPWG" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ipnsigpwg+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ipnsigpwg/0298f830-ea89-e151-1837-5e5ccb3ae710%40spacelypackets.com > . >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
