[CGA-EXT] Comments on draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-01

Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu> Mon, 01 March 2010 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>
X-Original-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE3528C32B for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:38:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZoO-nKDlcChA for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.int-evry.fr (smtp4.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2CB28C322 for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 05:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.int-evry.fr (smtp2.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.45]) by smtp4.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B54EFE4521; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:28:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp-ext.int-evry.fr (smtp-ext.int-evry.fr [157.159.11.17]) by smtp2.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4A0405018; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:28:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [157.159.100.39] (unknown [157.159.100.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-ext.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDDF90130; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:28:02 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:27:49 +0100 (CET)
From: Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>
X-X-Sender: shad@whitebox
To: roque@lacnic.net, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, ana.kukec@fer.hr
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1003011417511.26166@whitebox>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-INT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-INT-MailScanner-ID: AC4A0405018.A838A
X-INT-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-INT-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, requis 6.01, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60)
X-INT-MailScanner-From: tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu
Cc: cga-ext@ietf.org
Subject: [CGA-EXT] Comments on draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-01
X-BeenThere: cga-ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: CGA and SeND Extensions <cga-ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cga-ext>
List-Post: <mailto:cga-ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:38:00 -0000

Hello Ana, Rogue and Suresh,

I read the draft draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-01 and I have the 
following comments:

Section 3 title is "SEND SKI trust anchor Name Type field.", I think it 
should be "SEND SKI trust anchor option Name Type field".

In section 3.1,
"   If the router is unable to find a path to the requested anchor, it
    SHOULD send an advertisement without any certificate.  In this case,
    the router SHOULD include the TA options that were solicited."
This is already stated in RFC 3971 (with the same terms). Is there any 
valid reason to add it there ? It makes it sound like a new "processing 
rule".

IMHO, the document is in a good shape.


Regards,
 	Tony