IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-sid-22: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 28 October 2023 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CCDC151080; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ecuu-XEwGA7p; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62c.google.com (mail-ej1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF998C15107E; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9bf0bee9f2fso96643366b.1; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1698512389; x=1699117189; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=byfDO7jBe74feB70ZgCDOehwAAwTg0NktBrXjPrz7zc=; b=FkQGg1i5NqdxRSg4GIEzv6lSxMMFBNNPhGgC/MsaL0Wz3oHpNl3mOfS9/TeYWkkCqJ ag+FQN3NNSWEtddCC4XOJrQevU/DjMHcHbeyTWEk94+snnRr8RNpBsruGf4pZRicU1L5 8+A0qmKB7Ur9MEoLeE9Nrt5xq5UQV/wdVRU5t6ivA4Juf14Khmndoe5YMtLjqSlrBzKO ZSK1ZtufT/CvWQLnozdiw17ZP/rPcbIOJhebwTrYq1LXz4+/5cpy2xKeYlHhKKyTwtho ikKDNATddOnFvSfmya7caVtUuZL1mgbd75LE8Pofdv4hZbc13wJdbjc/sU5q4gyt/JY5 N36Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698512389; x=1699117189; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=byfDO7jBe74feB70ZgCDOehwAAwTg0NktBrXjPrz7zc=; b=KnueubpFzjtvUN31tv42R2HTdn1JVOyfPYircMfLtxyqKRm9zGTaVwfO+/WOLgwteC mQBBzmF+VciTF4NYwpjPe99XfRLfZF6GGqZVf51u5uoSZWDPKTGqWJNloBAbJ3YnAJjZ GiYPedN1metLFAsr/Z3WZ0TC33ZMTthCTxVCEgWdXB3ErrOQ748jxP8j/wmJNjgSJ+vL Lw7febsldOyYiutLRSXD99RAykaLihUaYkaERpA+2Q192z2oC2VD0ZzT/F6cXUZZ6j4P eWT5IatbeXByUyzJoWgHDGi3FJiJ+R1RwlN+MVwlc6PwtbR43Q4eCfi8heSIIucFuJ4d dv5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywis/HZKLoX9x2PTc3YeAaEH3af2eyuUxpRP4QF8t97d69b5GYJ ty+MyFFPRkdsUXWs+soqnIBHD8jyXcbBp97zysjRp+WV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHFVRvobcZ4udlyP+7j9Y+P8YGXk1r/7SI1qeuNy9vzpK1vIZWOYKvknA3hE1JC17Rr6hKjmgCMObUmE4w8NlE=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:86aa:b0:9bf:b83c:5efd with SMTP id qa42-20020a17090786aa00b009bfb83c5efdmr4334918ejc.3.1698512388865; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <169830425849.60370.8571387158946572818@ietfa.amsl.com> <21335.1698342868@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <21335.1698342868@localhost>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:59:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaZNeUVg1tDzq5h3=Voh0h1Ad0P=JL-oh1WwBWJ8geTew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-core-sid@ietf.org, core-chairs@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000095c5e70608c9bb79"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/MHJJ2LFla7vKGgSSFZLJelAa6d0>
Subject: Re: [core] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-sid-22: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:59:54 -0000

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:54 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

> Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>     > * In 6.3.1, why is "policy of SID range" considered part of "contact
>     > information"?
>
> This is for Mega-Ranges, that we/IANA would delegate to other SDOs.
> We (visitors to iana.org) need to know to whom that SDO will give out
> SID numbers.   Some SDOs might give them out to anyone with a document
> related to them, while others might insist that queries only come from
> internal requestors.
> Cisco could ask for a Mega-Range for all of their private YANG modules.
> vs IEEE could ask a Mega-Range for all the ethernet YANG modules.
>

I don't have any concern about the registry including the policy in the
registration, but I don't understand why it falls under "contact
information".  It's not part of the registrant's identity.


>     > * Also in 6.3.2, how do you imagine the designated expert evaluating
> "technical
>     > capacity" to operate a registry?  I note that Robert raised a
> similar concern.
>
> It's pretty subjective, I agree.
> I'd look at a few things involving web/database clue which they host
> themselves?  Or is it hosted WP with a ten year old template full of bugs?
> Are the technical people funded to do this work?
>

Yeah, I get it, I just think this is sufficiently vague that one DE to the
next will probably assert varying criteria, which could be a problem.


>     > * Sections 6.4 and 6.5 create registries that are going to be
> complicated for
>     > the Designated Expert to work, and for the DE to present to the IESG
> proof that
>     > the process was followed if asked.  I have to trust that all this
> complexity is
>     > necessary.
>
> I'm not sure how we could simplify it.
> It doesn't seem that hard to me.
>

Well you've been part of its development.  I'm seeing it for the first time.


> I see your point that it might be difficult from the DE to assemble the
> right
> evidence if they haven't been thinking about filing that stuff ahead of
> time.
>

Is it worth advising the DE to keep some notes for a while?


> > * In 6.5.1, by "link", do you mean a URI?
>
> Yes.
>

I suggest saying so.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email