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

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Tue, 02 March 2010 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
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 BE15628C1C8 for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:03:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 qcq9Ga5GESHv for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7E03A8B78 for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 09:03:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o22H5r6w019938; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:05:53 -0600
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.20]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:03:26 -0500
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>, "roque@lacnic.net" <roque@lacnic.net>, "ana.kukec@fer.hr" <ana.kukec@fer.hr>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:03:25 -0500
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-01
Thread-Index: Acq5Qyaqrub/8vnSSlyOXjwtAY1qfAAYuSqA
Message-ID: <4FD1E7CD248BF84F86BD4814EDDDBCC14E5CF5B9E6@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1003011417511.26166@whitebox>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1003011417511.26166@whitebox>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "cga-ext@ietf.org" <cga-ext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:03:32 -0000

Hi Tony,
  Thanks for your comments. Please find responses inline .

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Cheneau [mailto:tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu] 
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 5:28 AM
> To: roque@lacnic.net; Suresh Krishnan; ana.kukec@fer.hr
> Cc: cga-ext@ietf.org
> Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-01
> 
> 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".

OK. Will make this change.

> 
> 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".

It is from RFC3971, as you mentioned. We want to mention this again to make sure that
This processing rule applies to the new TA name type as well. Is it OK if we change the text to

"As specified in [RFC3971], 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."

> IMHO, the document is in a good shape.

Cool.

Thanks
Suresh