[Nfd-dev] LINK spec discussion

[Wentao Shang]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Yingdi Yu <yingdi at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

>
> On Sep 15, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Wentao Shang <wentaoshang at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Alex Afanasyev <
> alexander.afanasyev at ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > 1/ I agree with Wentao on the following:
>> >
>> >> a link object "A -> B" involves two parties, i.e., A and B. Unless A
>> and B are actually the same party, you need to have two signatures, one
>> from A and one from B, to indicate that both parties have agreed on this
>> link relationship.
>>
>> This is very general statement.  On a surface, this could be a desired
>> property.  The whole question which goal is this property achieving?  In my
>> opinion, giving provider a tool to allow/deny hosting things inside the
>> provider is much bigger harm then allowing anybody to express their desire
>> for their client to try to request data from the specific provider.
>
>
> I don't quite understand this argument: if the provider doesn't want to
> host the client's content, the link relationship wouldn't have existed in
> the first place.
>
>
> No, it is not about hosting the client's content, the client still hosts
> its own data from its own machine, but the machine is connected to the
> internet through att's network. Basically, the client only bought the
> internet access from att. If a link object signed by att is required to
> publish the data, it implies that att can decide the type of data that the
> client can publish. I think this violates the network neutrality, and
> nobody would like that.
>

In this case, yes, double signature is not necessary because the link is
pointing to the client's own data. As I said, double signature is only
meaningful when the link tries to connect two different parties.


>
> The signature is only a technical means for the provider to express its
> approval of hosting. Whether the provide *will* host or not sounds more
> like a layer-10 issue to me.
>
>
>> As I mentioned before, even if such property implemented in the LINK, how
>> is it different from just sending of bunch of unsatisfiable Interests
>> towards the provider?
>>
>
> I'm not comfortable with the logic behind this argument: if there are two
> backdoors that can lead to the same security hole, can we simply say that
> we can leave the 2nd door open because the hackers are going to use the 1st
> door anyway?
>
>
> No, the logic is: if one of the backdoor is easier to be exploited to
> launch an attack, what is the point of fixing the other backdoor (which is
> more difficult to be exploited)? Attackers are not fools.
>

I don't have counter-argument to this one from technical perspective :) But
at least this discussion should go into the "security considerations"
section in the documentation.

Wentao


>
> Yingdi
>
>


-- 
PhD @ IRL, CSD, UCLA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20140915/b257c4f9/attachment.html>