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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 06 November 2014 23:25 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 59E7C1ACD1E for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:25:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 ZgDXx-7DNWZP for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8332C1ACD16 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:25:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA6NPH8h013272; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:25:17 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([66.129.246.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA6NPDcu013197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:25:14 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>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C4567D@dfweml706-chm>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:25:11 -0000
Message-ID: <03e301cffa18$ec0392d0$c40ab870$@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+qmENIWGDpBkNZIR7gHHuJnVm6OgMFA=
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--6.484-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.484-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: nVQUmLJJeyanykMun0J1whLuW4a3q2WG6Pzo2DwBrIpLjXXGQy6nlMIE WwKN7d6Vd3mUtMNVEsoexG7i1uFD1aeKeWfrBp42R+GtoiXVeDF+S5m2/8VLmgVv+UfuVvKRPNZ otZu3jXmcMwHpDslpFY0gjSCSkjtB63DIQZqenqbzh2yKdnl7WMp1+dXeunnLmyiLZetSf8nJ4y 0wP1A6AMaUO+wtQNbajoczmuoPCq10Bk/4ze6WcsY6+cCQ52X9dPTjdAX+nBzpJHlh7e7G8bKqn ulMBf1Y
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/oFoAuhgbhjcEdAYzRVyUqJMEZJE
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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 23:25:27 -0000

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 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