IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 10 July 2019 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 20E5612014E; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 O5HCixRAVTfD; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC332120147; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E39F3818E; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BFBA8A; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <156277529950.15124.2390956674545685683.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <156277529950.15124.2390956674545685683.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 16:51:23 -0400
Message-ID: <2520.1562791883@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/rycNHA4JqtobFgMNxLJjh0tU28A>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 20:51:27 -0000

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > (2) Section 5.8.1.  The format of the MASA audit log seems
    > underspecified.  Is the JSON snippet presented here normative to
    > describe the MASA audit log
    > response?

Yes, it's intended to be normative.
How can we make it clearer without over-engineering this, remembering that
this is a PS, not IS, and the proof will be in the running-code.

Would you prefer to used CDDL or something like that to describe it?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email