IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-14: (with COMMENT)

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Fri, 18 October 2019 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B8B120827; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 67QlwSuOafql; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B20C1200DE; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id x9IJSUgS007023; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:28:31 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBB1C94D4; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:28:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id qITks_WhVCq1; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:28:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from lanthane.irif.fr (unknown [172.23.36.89]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 616D7C94D1; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:28:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:28:32 +0200
Message-ID: <87o8ydkg4f.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis@ietf.org, d3e3e3@gmail.com, babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <156670120875.21554.10994837694906657697.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <156670120875.21554.10994837694906657697.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5DAA125E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5DAA125E.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5DAA125E.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/HwLCLeD65B-4pXvK-QNwwI3P8pQ>
Subject: Re: [babel] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:28:43 -0000

Dear Alyssa,

> Part of the response to my DISCUSS argued that making this specification comply
> with BCP 61 would harm the reputation of the IETF.

I believe you may be putting words into my mouth.  I merely argued that
providing high-quality, secure implementations to our users and convincing
them to deploy the security mechanisms is a better way to advance than to
put an MTI requirement in the protocol specification, and politely
requested that this document be allowed to advance without an MTI
requirement.

I have reworked the security considerations to make a stronger
recommendation albeit without using normative language.  I hope this can
convince you to reopen the discussion.

-- Juliusz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email