<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As part of early lighting control work, we had already proposed an authenticated interest approach that includes sequence #, timestamp, and RTT estimator as state to avoid replay attacks:</div>
<div><a href="http://named-data.net/wp-content/uploads/nomen13.pdf">http://named-data.net/publications/nomen13/</a></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">(see p4).</span></div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
(I am not sure why SignedInterest doesn't provide at least an optional sequence number.... Can the ndn-cxx/architecture folks comment on why this was removed from the design?)</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Thanks,</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Jeff</div>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><<a href="mailto:Marc.Mosko@parc.com">Marc.Mosko@parc.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:54:46 +0000<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span><<a href="mailto:mjs@cisco.com">mjs@cisco.com</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span><<a href="mailto:nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu">nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [Nfd-dev] Signed Interest processing: alternate to stop-and-wait<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
I think if a protocol needs serialized commands, it should have its own serial number and not confound protocols by using a field from a different area of concern. For example, if you change signing algorithms that use a different mechanism, will that break
your protocol?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the signing algorithm and verification should use its own mechanism. Other protocols should not peek in to there for their properties. For example, some system might ditch the existing signature and put a new signature on there. That should not
change your protocol’s behavior.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marc</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 23, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Mark Stapp <<a href="mailto:mjs@cisco.com">mjs@cisco.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">it</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ Nfd-dev mailing list <a href="mailto:Nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu">
Nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu</a> <a href="http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev">
http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev</a> </blockquote>
</span>
</body>
</html>