Re: [Dtls-iot] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dice-profile-14

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 14 September 2015 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dtls-iot@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtls-iot@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A301B2AA1; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 uaLOyerw2W9R; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88B281AC3C5; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F787BE53; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:31:44 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RfBvWR4PXZ-p; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:31:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.27.30]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADA52BE3F; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:31:42 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1442266302; bh=qfUAzVoPlY+pOkEbQVHT4oZ2fQQ5AAlPSnR0nI3T1FA=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XUXREspNn2jXcsfpaCsmiOnH01DOTkCZxHET9m6GvpBdhPc+JftNC6sItQrKEPyOP ZUDlanEPE85pgylb8jOx6esYFFYdW+cFSKSTWPKuyzgu02T5/74T9T0BfIjMlrPuEb DllsDLbO8X2Df83lkcbHH04eQ+1J77oXXPotTJXM=
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, draft-ietf-dice-profile.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <55E63507.40404@gmail.com> <55EF35FA.5020709@gmx.net> <55F6CB57.4050408@cs.tcd.ie> <55F729B1.1050100@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <55F73CBE.4070604@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:31:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55F729B1.1050100@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtls-iot/EvMvSKG2Y3R5nYgF8EG19_ZZPns>
Cc: "dtls-iot@ietf.org" <dtls-iot@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dtls-iot] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dice-profile-14
X-BeenThere: dtls-iot@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DTLS for IoT discussion list <dtls-iot.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtls-iot>, <mailto:dtls-iot-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtls-iot/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtls-iot@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtls-iot-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtls-iot>, <mailto:dtls-iot-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:31:47 -0000


On 14/09/15 21:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I promise not to appeal. The downref rules are quite creaky and annoying,
> so I'd support them being overhauled anyway, as long as egregious downrefs
> can still be prevented or appealed.

Yep. Anything can always be appealed of course, and ID nits does call
it out, but we (all of us) miss these over and over again.

FWIW, my own impression is that the current IESG are more ok with the
"accepted by the community" criterion being asserted (e.g. by the
responsible AD) as obviously being the case. And I think that's a
good thing, so we can avoid more of the process-only IETF last calls.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I've added 7251 to the downref registry and called out the
potential blooper in my ballot writeup. [1]

   [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dice-profile/writeup/