[Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-05.txt

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Sun, 23 October 2005 20:15 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ETmFH-00087l-BP; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:15:07 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ETl4Q-0001VC-NW for gen-art@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:59:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20233 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:59:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hermes.hosts.co.uk ([212.84.175.24]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ETlGy-0003DR-Uw for gen-art@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:12:52 -0400
Received: from [69.138.71.61] (helo=[192.168.1.100]) by hermes.hosts.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1ETl3r-00036J-4h; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:59:16 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20051021163252.GA5196@sbrim-wxp01>
References: <E3F9D87C63E2774390FE67C924EC99BB0AB3D30C@zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com> <20051021163252.GA5196@sbrim-wxp01>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <80E180E0-382E-430D-9BEB-B95388428C90@g11.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:59:06 -0400
To: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:15:06 -0400
Cc: Kimberly.s.king@saic.com, gen-art@ietf.org, sob@harvard.edu, jon.peterson@neustar.biz
Subject: [Gen-art] Re: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ieprep-domain-req-05.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

>>    Any application layer label mechanisms used to support ETS MUST be
>>    capable of supporting both the set of ETS and non-ETS (presumably,
>>    normal) users.
>
> I'm not sure about this one, perhaps because I don't understand what
> it means.  I can envision, for example, applications that are only
> used in ETS situations, and are only capable of running with ETS
> labels.  Are they disallowed?  No special apps?
>
> I can see a requirement that any application which is used during
> normal times must still be usable during "medium emergencies".  Is
> that the goal?

the intent of the requirement was to discourage designs/ 
specifications that totally ignore a "normal" condition -- even if  
the application is used exclusively by ETS type users (e.g., first  
responders like Fireman).  The practice of taking into account the  
"normal" condition is found in existing specifications of MLPP, eMLPP  
for GSM, and Project 16 for mobile radio.

admittedly, when the above requirement was written, I had in mind  
existing IETF applications and I wanted to squash any attempted  
augmentation that damaged its legacy operation for "normal" or non- 
ETS type users.

How does the following sound?

      Regarding existing IETF specified applications, augmentations  
in the form
      of labeling mechanisms to support ETS  MUST NOT adversely  
affect its
      legacy usage by non-ETS users.  With respect to future  
applications, such
      labeling mechanisms SHOULD allow the application to support a  
"normal"
      (non-emergency) condition.


> Also a nit in case there is another version ...
>
>
>>    If proxies take such action, then the security measures  
>> discussed in
>>    [rfc3689] MUST be considered.  More discussion about security  
>> in the
>>    single domain context is discussed in section 5.
>>
>
> You don't mean to say that the discussion is discussed. :-)

thanks for catching that.  it will be fixed :)

-ken


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art