Re: [GROW] Genart Telechat review: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07

Peter Schoenmaker <pds@lugs.com> Thu, 20 August 2015 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pds@lugs.com>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECCA1AD333; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hPJtGi6ugYci; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU004-OMC3S19.hotmail.com (blu004-omc3s19.hotmail.com [65.55.116.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 908BC1AD338; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU436-SMTP120 ([65.55.116.72]) by BLU004-OMC3S19.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:24:54 -0700
X-TMN: [Olwo0XnI4UZ+i+yhWxdOwAGj+CIlQwdK]
X-Originating-Email: [pds@lugs.com]
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP1206BBC3381E9B5F5A48226DF660@phx.gbl>
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.150807
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:24:49 +0100
From: Peter Schoenmaker <pds@lugs.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [GROW] Genart Telechat review: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07
References: <558B3AEE.2010009@nostrum.com> <55D21E56.7040608@nostrum.com> <3209D838-C031-4689-8CCB-6EAFE25CC2D1@piuha.net> <55D5DF94.2030003@nostrum.com> <DC452CCA-33CB-4B51-9FBD-C27FBD02D78F@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <DC452CCA-33CB-4B51-9FBD-C27FBD02D78F@piuha.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Aug 2015 19:24:53.0209 (UTC) FILETIME=[E3BF1490:01D0DB7D]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/EHACByn6PhTU7cbXRfg10OSxVXI>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats.all@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [GROW] Genart Telechat review: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:24:57 -0000

Hi,

Jari the points you have made are supported by the work done in GROW on this draft.  Specifically, #1 there is consensus behind the draft, time was spent making sure it covered the right points which had consensus.  On #2 it does seem that the confusion comes from the use of the first person in the draft.  By changing the grammar to definitive statements makes the document stronger, and continues to accurately represent the consensus reached during the work on the text.

An example of the changes would be:

Change:
"The authors note that due to the distributed nature and restricted visibility of the steering of BGP policies, this second step is deemed to not identify the origin of the problem with guaranteed accuracy.”

To:
"Due to the distributed nature and restricted visibility of the steering of BGP policies, this second step does not identify the origin of the problem with guaranteed accuracy."


Peter
 



On 8/20/15, 3:34 PM, "GROW on behalf of Jari Arkko" <grow-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

>After some more staring of the data tracker settings, you are of course completely correct,
>Robert :-) The document is marked as having IETF consensus setting, so the text that you
>quoted will get inserted into the RFC.
>
>Pardon my mistake in assuming it wasn’t.
>
>On the IESG call we had a discussion about this issue. We saw two separate questions:
>
>1) Substance: Is there a consensus behind the document’s recommendations? The sponsoring AD
>and the IESG believes so.
>
>2) Editorial: Is it appropriate to use the “the authors recommend…” form for IETF-level
>consensus statements? The sponsoring AD took your comment about the formulation
>(also recommended by other ADs) and will work with the author to revise the document.
>However, this matter is indeed editorial, i.e., a Comment rather than a Discuss level
>requirement from the IESG.
>
>So the document will be approved, after some editorial modifications, and will become
>an RFC.
>
>Jari
>
>_______________________________________________
>GROW mailing list
>GROW@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow