Re: [Detnet] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: (with COMMENT)

Ethan Grossman <> Sat, 09 January 2021 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F2FA3A1411 for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:36:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.349
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.25, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yy2_umhOCea6 for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A1FB3A1412 for <>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id iq13so4544064pjb.3 for <>; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:36:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=reply-to:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :organization:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:thread-index; bh=hDj7mXFm/OBpO9EVqjB4+v/joOpgzc1J7/BXwLTqJiA=; b=KR62+NGN9FFTL4yYjkMHEUqsoA2987cRcZ9yxlUYGwsHg16rTCrCjFSDRewv7me3/n xsDiOF00WxdgwpFBnu26tUe1q51NyJFsBbfCEpZ2vYAPFTEShhlkZVxNXOLosSpd9Mau IWHsCf9MNFTjLrDTZ7X3eYcQH2rYY8YWrb0/s=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :subject:date:organization:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-language:thread-index; bh=hDj7mXFm/OBpO9EVqjB4+v/joOpgzc1J7/BXwLTqJiA=; b=PuRF4vugUqFISxL1sO8YnsMIPa/yPU2F3N4A4RImdCl4ZFrq2xdSCEfwLZKwY+M2L1 ODManUkU5wAmcBaN7IAvxREFwu3a0X4hzMK56g6HjkIIacupK+tL+Ok+YsVY1t0BWPh/ +n5WGTIycSV5dX1N8fabbYyCRu1KQ1ES8yM/reB/maNE8zHGvMnrPPDMe7NZh6zpBVL1 tlFzQF1YXwid2jeKSFjhP4eIUSaOzvmNoam93xN+DsdGzNrqmvtYeVLcHhfsCqfNKZ+c yi2o5PgJNN32o4Ss3gfvKlz33k3e9PGYwjL7pjxP57mtCNkX5Uj4TD7tzwc3keQVTkr1 Pzaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532L8KRG+xb+CLis0Ury+NEH3uCUwhr4LhS21qWnM2F7+9X2g3bR PhP1gNbahIGsJ0beYQa41pXdZg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxOGXeJ2DfRJMNVkcDkj2sEtR1DpzdveIyZi0CaxUs+PU4zVv72JFrRfCQbpwq0NQZOihrRMQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d38b:b029:db:e003:3ff0 with SMTP id e11-20020a170902d38bb02900dbe0033ff0mr6380081pld.7.1610152608486; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:36:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOPC435DDQ ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x14sm4246917pfp.77.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: <>
From: "Ethan Grossman" <>
To: "'Alissa Cooper'" <>, "'The IESG'" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>, "'Lou Berger'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:36:44 -0800
Organization: Coast Computer Design
Message-ID: <0ede01d6e61f$8291dba0$87b592e0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQGLG5IZ36e/5XgPBM0lV8eMAAPfGaq2AqZA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 00:36:51 -0000

Hello Alissa (and WG - one open question below),
Thank you for your comment. Regarding the table (figure 2 in section 6) we can certainly remove the blockchain and slicing columns. Regarding the utility of the whole table, this table was a contribution from a security industry professional, and I personally don't know the broad industry literature well enough to determine whether this form of table is of use to our readership, which is presumably security professionals, although perhaps this table is more oriented toward the business side than the technical side. 

At this point I don't see any other review comments suggesting that the whole table be removed. I note your language in the comment "at a minimum" so I take this to mean that you don't feel strongly about removing the whole table. 

So this table is close to being voted off the island, but it hasn't happened yet;  if anyone else wants to see it dropped, please speak up, otherwise it stays. 

Ethan (as Editor, DetNet Security draft)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <> 
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 6:38 AM
To: The IESG <>
Cc:;;; Lou Berger <>et>;
Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I did not have time to review this document in detail but I looked at the Gen-ART review and it seems that most of the points have been addressed, thanks. I agree with other ADs that the tables in Section 6 do not make much sense or add much value. At a minimum the block chain and networking slicing columns should be removed as they are provided with no explanation and do not seem to belong with the other columns.