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

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Fri, 07 November 2014 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
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 E3C861ACE37 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:35:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.828
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.828 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.998, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_BODY=1.157, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_61=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] 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 Om1Y3STBnN0f for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 003A31ACE32 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOM42056; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:35:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:35:06 +0000
Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.225]) by dfweml702-chm ([10.193.5.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:34:56 -0800
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
Thread-Index: Ac/5MGMsQKAsEoKTR4GemhQ+XYEt+wAwUyHwABqR1IAAD2/4MA==
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 00:34:55 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C456F4@dfweml706-chm>
References: <006001cff999$cbb939a0$632bace0$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C4567D@dfweml706-chm> <03e301cffa18$ec0392d0$c40ab870$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <03e301cffa18$ec0392d0$c40ab870$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.138.199]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C456F4dfweml706chm_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/dFdgizmNNRBuFT3AcDfL6bpMvZs
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <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
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 00:35:43 -0000

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