Re: [Anima] ANIMA: WG call for consensus BRSKI "endpoint path" modification (was: Re: Status of renaming endpoint path?)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 01 September 2020 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E68C3A0C5F for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qh_e0wZwIdJ1 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F183A0C45 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id o68so1774622pfg.2 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IgUi8M3v3NLNmW4AyCPFo0v7VFI5MbtaLSrt5gb8koI=; b=ltw2W4uZKSKQx04QPTapfW2ixDhg/yg9lCQCz5vn/fG160IdZo2OerK81qwdmgSYxP YYosCDIaIWowzLu+WGJZqBE9MY0jd3a/W436jJj7uhCOpawyYLCfIrvOF1WnqBWkpNLt dEJli4NZbK4KBqJk+aalzTk6rZRG74wfY96HwKNtycPi2RxkmPAbYF68FuWn7qib6JR4 qfML4pKHJXpdUQvp0dSM4E7Z+8xhmojx3r7tqNGwOGS0bLNf19LtXIIWKUqVoQdkAG0o NDoTpBluE/5ACV/wXSufUSfRaNn+SWZlNXtEGrIaqgiGOXISeQk8z9rRUZDhMKVX6AXj p4lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IgUi8M3v3NLNmW4AyCPFo0v7VFI5MbtaLSrt5gb8koI=; b=V6xCV0AjCpXS7QztBKxF0WYYjjfpSyImeSMlPr+hEinpWiZWTNp5gcEKVFWuvP6yMp sHSM2wQXDadGUNC/q/fH77BgSgXQnuptcDxyHREvcb4XL8kdI8MGcP0t6XLl+DooRw8E pqTMDVWbbXKMKkcCkBmqoOAG9lXVT7lNfBsbST5EqCHq/apWjzzKYg6wENolGJ1wZIeO gfmnLTm7HGkQCbVtnbicK4IrUym0fSXqbEXD3E7cSYpfVrKCxoE1qnHfq8COV4R+Lqjz LheDeD8xsbpb8tJFhAvQuUCRW6hWYOGgByHWp9E9mWhj7zE5f/FbjbMeM1NiteiEym2G qi9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533MJHbTJZRtGgZSX2EUJgKay6MePyInSJ/zAycJpYFPwk73jvWu /Tf5R2nv7oXusI2csKz/bu78L+LxdhEf+Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxNA3azI6pUNaMZvDttzVdCPX0ktgxYKhRbAQYScYkDApqCxXgGyz6cgDWn8Mp7tF2QKudmfg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:7e4c:: with SMTP id o12mr3489043pgn.270.1598925767853; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.139.192]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j8sm9705884pfh.90.2020.08.31.19.02.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
References: <20200901015906.GA20765@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a2f35897-41a8-6fe2-8efb-81d55819936f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 14:02:42 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200901015906.GA20765@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/J_LzCN8813YImLi1Cqwbgr0gvro>
Subject: Re: [Anima] ANIMA: WG call for consensus BRSKI "endpoint path" modification (was: Re: Status of renaming endpoint path?)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 02:02:50 -0000

I support the proposed change.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 01-Sep-20 13:59, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Dear ANIMA WG
> 
> This email starts a 2 week call for consensus to modify draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
> such that new well-known URIs introduced by BRSKI will use a /.well-known/brski
> prefix instead of the pre-existing /.well-known/est prefix.
> 
> The proposed change can be seen at the following rfcdiff URL:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00
> 
> This consensus call will end on September 14, 23:59 UTC
> This consensus call is ONLY for said change and not for any other aspects of BRSKI.
> 
> If you have any objections to this change, please explain them by replying to
> this email during this period. If you agree with these changes please say so as well.
> 
> FYI: What would happen afterwards ?
> 
> a) If ANIMA does not have consensus, nothing more would happen, BRSKI would continue
>    stay unchanged in RFC editor queue waiting to be released by ACP draft 
> 
> b) If ANIMA WG has rough consensus on this change:
> 
> - Warren Kumari or Robert Wilton would start a 2 week IETF consensus call on the subject.
> - When not successful, see a)
> 
> -  When successful:
> 
> - BRSKI authors would rev' the BRSKI document with the proposed text change,
> - the responsible AD (Warren) would update the YES on the document
> - Mark Nottingham as the responsible expert for the impacted IANA registry would
>   have to agree on the proposed registry change (which according to prior emails
>   he seems to be)
> - IESG would approve the change, the rev'ed version of BRSKI would go into RFC Editor queue
> 
> According to Warrens prior emails (see below), this whole process should take ca. 5 weeks,
> which is shorter than the current queue length of RFC-editor, and that is still
> predicating that ACP draft is approved quickly by IESG (see below)
> 
> Hopefully i did no misrepresent any of the FYI steps.
> 
> Thank you very much
>     Toerless (for the ANIMA WG chairs).
> 
> P.S.: appended Warrens prior summary.
> 
> P.S.2.: Warren: I didn't send this mail earlier because from your writeup below it sounded
> as if my top priority should still be to work through 1922 lines of "this should be easy to fix"
> DISCUSS/COMMENTS from IESG against ACP to shorten the time BRSKI would have to wait in RFC
> editor queue - with or without this modification. But the increasing grouching level on
> the mailing list about this subject told me that this priorization was wrong. I apologize.
> 
> In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iJDGhn9W0TaJ6kKQi-RTtuCvFh7UVN-jb_MbP3BbP4z2g@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 05:01:53PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Back in late July Steffan sent:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/jjusQdqzS3G4WbczolCxF0_YmQQ/
>> regarding renaming "Handling of endpoint path names (from BRSKI-AE
>> discussion today)".
>>
>> Michael has a document ready to do this:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00
>>
>> Brian was concerned that this might add an unknown additional delay:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/3Ov2s8XxQ6pnQMp6PTd9_yDc-D0/
>>
>> Luckily, if the WG does want to do this, we should be able to make it
>> happen without adding any delay (but we are running out of time...).
>>
>> If the chairs kick off a consensus call, asking for objections **on
>> this change only**, then I can do a 2 week IETF LC, also asking for
>> objections **on this change only**.
>>
>> I've already (mid-August) confirmed that the IESG is OK with this
>> process, so it would take [however long the Chairs choose to do the WG
>> consensus call for (1 week? 2 weeks?) ]  + [2 weeks IETF consensus
>> call] +[a few days of slop] = ~5 weeks...
>>
>> This document is gated on (at least)
>> draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane (which will take some time to
>> wind its way through the RFC Ed process) so if this were to occur
>> soon, there would be no added delay...
>>
>> Just FYI...
>> W
>>
>> -- 
>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
>> idea in the first place.
>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
>> of pants.
>>    ---maf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Anima mailing list
>> Anima@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>