IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 16 July 2019 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 29B99120162; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 6Saew3xoBweX; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 0AAEB12002F; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6GMmKVc025123 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:48:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1563317304; bh=esA1TV7zfa7ZFugEqSFvf8yu0M9BvSazScqDlDEwFE8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=FvLwLniSVpGrd35nd1GuJN2Rw/zmbwxvTdfIHHzprbU+UD73lZMPb0iGfFB277dNG KXst8LBotMLfg4X5S9p8UjjR2OSXO/4B024y11L5aD9dsXjF4syQdQA4RXKR/jeOhS HlfL1KygiBB1tlBDXMQuwd4WUL9JWYC2X20/ibn0=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, tte+ietf@cs.fau.de, anima-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, anima@ietf.org
References: <156282301326.15131.7510532622479656237.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <12747.1563315277@localhost>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <ffdb35e3-3f7e-4d5f-dff8-be04ebb3429c@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:48:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <12747.1563315277@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/s7KGUgcXd92wHPKKecEPVIOWfN4>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Benjamin Kaduk'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: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:48:26 -0000

On 7/16/19 5:14 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Adam Roach:    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/6AAD9mwsKEsbIUmXRVOAV0N83yA
> ...
> This is an rfcdiff from the already-wrapped JSON to the proposed -23 that
> includes all the changes from the various DISCUSSes up to now:
>    https://tinyurl.com/y2qhjwh8


As a quick note -- the diff above does not address the "discuss" part of 
my second discuss point: the document remains ambiguous regarding *how* 
the URL is to be returned. The lengthy parenthetical references added to 
the corresponding paragraph aren't sufficient to positively indicate 
that the URL appears in a "Location" header: this needs to be stated 
explicitly rather than implied by a section reference.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email