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

Ethan Grossman <ethan@ieee.org> Tue, 12 January 2021 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ethan@ieee.org>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F303A1208 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:07:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.349
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
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 fbnRFyWkPIJL for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 538C93A1205 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id iq13so2405179pjb.3 for <detnet@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:07:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; 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=0YSM80CV7UWwk7hubWvrRuLyDjbOAUM/lToXBxRU9bU=; b=aSSanP0rmrh41pslmL82uwrT2TTdtJBw/BM5EKzDxhnFqjm57wotaeEoDAk1gmU88B i5MKJrYM12He/2Gp+PVidSTjCZrIcFc5My+byeC4/TjzPmsYbaz4caBM8ygKgeXKEBVt /dMhr6kvh83ZNVNA1Kc8/+JtYl/VS+j+BMIDk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=0YSM80CV7UWwk7hubWvrRuLyDjbOAUM/lToXBxRU9bU=; b=Rp1oc9BblZ+O/5MzQwrZ7NEZdQSzth8+vzIEs/0lbaj8NiXXs/qSRSdK2TLyv4Zv4O uiE2hv8cPUoSBiJUyB2TTIIh0r7prQ2gfWirgSA9Y45jOH+99hHqCW+5p8adU8RGt7Fv 6QUkxxpE5nsDxlWp5jw2NmYGa9x4vS4WMGx2frnlfyGWtSdSCjQykBgH0CENeDmDCcwW lwoFtNCR7vhyKnaX5pATaMx0wou8Kpw4eSqCCzVjr6iW0rEJHGvxn4FDJf40IaNgh7Eb ABdH7t3Lf+lziwi5ODTf+HmpfgHNfWjXEeSPWsRR/877qTy82CL1G147XNnDwnaQKAlR PTJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vBa2DWkjf6MlH96OanWywMt7FJt1Q+iNQn3aU+LJLsEfocIDG GxcsRD7aoKwbEWSmhQnZSLDuTA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwK665X3IrmJeQxLOpnHR+y8k20JYiLLej0SdoKJixpZMN7xTQ+ckyngxH4M+rb0KEAcCl/8w==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:aa85:: with SMTP id l5mr1076513pjq.230.1610485620456; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOPC435DDQ (99-46-181-151.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [99.46.181.151]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g5sm4069pfr.87.2021.01.12.13.06.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: ethan@ieee.org
From: Ethan Grossman <ethan@ieee.org>
To: ethan@ieee.org, "'Eric Vyncke (evyncke)'" <evyncke@cisco.com>, 'Alissa Cooper' <alissa@cooperw.in>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: detnet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-detnet-security@ietf.org, 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
References: <161003030942.17695.10581730075309916561@ietfa.amsl.com> <0ede01d6e61f$8291dba0$87b592e0$@ieee.org> <93830898-560A-4F66-A280-0BF93D6D55AC@cisco.com> <12aa01d6e7c1$50f890e0$f2e9b2a0$@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <12aa01d6e7c1$50f890e0$f2e9b2a0$@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 13:06:57 -0800
Organization: Coast Computer Design
Message-ID: <172c01d6e926$ddc4a750$994df5f0$@ieee.org>
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/5XgPBM0lV8eMAAPfGQHFL8JJARXlYuIB00QrhaqWohHA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/hU6fR10D-TtApF0W0Y27VUlI5dE>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:07:03 -0000

Correction to my statement below: Roman did suggest that the whole table (figure 2 in section 6) be removed. It would be nice to have at least one other person weigh in on the value of this table to our intended readership. Lacking any other input, at this point I'm ready to remove the whole table. Going once...
Ethan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ethan Grossman <ethan@ieee.org> 
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 6:28 PM
To: 'Eric Vyncke (evyncke)' <evyncke@cisco.com>; 'Alissa Cooper' <alissa@cooperw.in>; 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: detnet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-detnet-security@ietf.org; 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>; detnet-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: (with COMMENT)

OK, so my proposal is now updated - we will remove Part 2 of the table as éric suggests, unless otherwise advised. 
Ethan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> 
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 12:46 AM
To: ethan@ieee.org; 'Alissa Cooper' <alissa@cooperw.in>; 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: detnet@ietf.org; draft-ietf-detnet-security@ietf.org; 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>; detnet-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: (with COMMENT)

Ethan, WG,

I would not mind removing the part 2 (mining, blockchain, network slicing) of the figure 2: there is no context given in the document.

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Ethan Grossman <ethan@ieee.org>
Organization: Coast Computer Design
Reply-To: "ethan@ieee.org" <ethan@ieee.org>
Date: Saturday, 9 January 2021 at 01:37
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-detnet-security@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-security@ietf.org>, 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, "detnet-chairs@ietf.org" <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-security-13: (with COMMENT)

    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. 

    Sincerely,
    Ethan (as Editor, DetNet Security draft)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
    Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 6:38 AM
    To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
    Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-security@ietf.org; detnet-chairs@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; lberger@labn.net
    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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-security/



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.