IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 07 November 2014 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BDC1A036E for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:42:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 ISA63uqHFcEG for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDD641A036F for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:42:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA70gpTm028072; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:42:52 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([66.129.246.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA70gmpC028060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:42:51 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Leeyoung' <leeyoung@huawei.com>, draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <006001cff999$cbb939a0$632bace0$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C4567D@dfweml706-chm> <03e301cffa18$ec0392d0$c40ab870$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C456F4@dfweml706-chm>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C456F4@dfweml706-chm>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:42:47 -0000
Message-ID: <03f601cffa23$c22110e0$466332a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIhKLE5mgFm+qmENIWGDpBkNZIR7gHHuJnVAgbVDhoCooLg5pt+bNtQ
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21082.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.382-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.382-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: QW5G6BKkLTq1bTw3bk4/Qxes/RxhysDb7yWPaQc4INR6GeWCu+JlEMLm p4jPUF8tRFsqph676uDr1hAhpZ8wHLa2Vh2jQ2eETgS3ftjOFdT6mRiZWXNny6j5v7I4/SgYxUo I5ol6KLyx3UgEylypQItg4WcukjQ2jh97YmbtUFKZroPNdqiG8yEJU0TVY7G+p+2qn7yJKRSr/f b8n3rcRBcHu6gPLFBCpd+5+UrUon6MBpJ8yl2hqG0PWqD0pliRknjBMY7iKBIJW4Re2U2py0P+e TU0PQXp4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt1ZFWWuOwo7w3QfwsVk0UbslCGssfkpInQ==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/U_Q6vQ_ntGqLfIWkjxIQjC9qgsA
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:42:59 -0000

OK

Hang on to that until IETF last call is done.

cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leeyoung [mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com]
> Sent: 07 November 2014 00:35
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Yes, RFC 3784 was obsolete and I put RFC 5305. Here's the working version
(v23)
> that updated all comments so far with diff'ed from the old version.
> 
> Thanks,
> Young
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Leeyoung; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
> 
> Very good.
> 
> Thanks. I've asked for the last call and I will formally drop y comments to
the IETF
> list.
> 
> Two points...
> 
> > Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE?
> >
> > YOUNG>> OK. RFC3784 added as normative reference.
> 
> That should be 5305,  I think.
> 
> > The question for section 8 is: are there any security elements that
> > need to be
> in
> > your information model? Security qualities of links and nodes?
> > Security capabilities of links and nodes?
> >
> > YOUNG>> I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you elaborate
> > YOUNG>> some
> > examples of security qualities/capabilities? Since this is
> > informational
> draft,
> > perhaps the corresponding encode draft may be a good place for this.
> 
> The encode draft would be exactly the place to talk about the specifics. The
> question is whether this draft should create the space to talk about the
specifics.
> 
> Maybe I am just dreaming and this should just be classified as "a future type
of
> metric" and nothing more needs to be said.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email