doc: clarify SCMP reality vs. ambition #4528
Labels
workitem
Something needs doing
Comments
|
Thanks a lot for opening this! JFYI, this issue relates to:
|
matzf
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 27, 2024
The SCMP "specification" document described support for SCMP as mandatory. Furthermore, it mandates the use of SPAO+DRKey authentication for SCMPs. This does not correspond to what is currently implemented. SCMP support has been treated as at least semi-optional e.g. in discussions around the dispatcher-less end host stack. Regarding the authentication, there is no full implementation of this neither in router (support in "our" router is experimental/demo-level, no other router implementation supports it at all) nor in end hosts (currently, nothing at all). There is not sufficiently clear consensus around this to pretend that we'll realize this ambition shortly. Update the documentation specs to reflect this reality. Move the SCMP authentication description into a design document. Closes #4528
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The SCMP "specification" document (in doc/protocols/scmp.rst) currently describes support for SCMP as mandatory. Furthermore, it mandates the use of SPAO+DRKey authentication for SCMPs.
This does not correspond to what is currently implemented. SCMP support has been treated as at least semi-optional e.g. in discussions around the dispatcher-less end host stack. Regarding the authentication, there is no full implementation of this neither in router (support in "our" router is experimental/demo-level, no other router implementation supports it at all) nor in end hosts (currently, nothing at all). There is not sufficiently clear consensus around this to pretend that we'll realize this ambition shortly. The documentation specs should be updated to reflect this reality, the authentication part can be moved into a design document.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: