Re: [Hipsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 15 August 2016 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B936912DDCB; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kgMd6_8dsiUv; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (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 E370012DDCC; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id j12so26588915ywb.2; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xKjwkY2PGS/zrHpEh4v8cVsy5Wti4/sC75EGkaIbHzU=; b=epcofneQLTHtoulhUAQklGFEjXa2v7yuhC0G0SYlDwbS1YNkFpgsOkELj2W+f9Nwkm C/tJL1Uo/5tMvEzYCsXo6yfFBVktGoWotzoPUI/u3gummpgu8gcC1OZ8fIDqyWOgZwf9 7VhbkoIphPe6V05NT3wQMUJ3C304J5qxdMyONU2FpSgxx+YMIy3/g1dPIZRm1Oq5MVyh riJmz7I0pTuoszrKQVnQllb7ReFEW19YBywiH5hfswjnp7KdMx3HU2dBSRvNwK6q0bwh m/MheB6Htm7Wa1QW5uUyqfz0jGSGl14ZYHsAOYJI6Y/Mf1ye6pDpWM+1iuGm/IuQhPjs xXTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xKjwkY2PGS/zrHpEh4v8cVsy5Wti4/sC75EGkaIbHzU=; b=HE5/75ijP+rSLBK0sIWIMUTSlJy/PCOhNS3nhKlhG3nM0c5zHFzfoqv7Kgjc1o5DCG ZIaB1O42LWepDh2xS6mbUzVfLXpi3NvjLVuRe1k7kIyalRjX908lOhA/2j8pMB2vH5aq 26sjK2728+AxD7RlyVfhtLcFJPE2IVue7hVW9JuCjz1OH18G+s7CI9YVvB7cqmt7USZp 9Hf4EAyfjGRK232GIqh7N33RnHvADAPg4ipwmhOhf65t6JN9kAax0Br9GMLn4oX8qX0j 20fOLx642M3z15127SrrptLSTP+iXBa66VW+QgYyDzLiVRBEiDTsTrqYNLmcvhDlFpji LLRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutaWNKncqpXDe42di3ACoHyHZEy4/+QpbSrrMoxrrUGdlw8p+40WCu62XxZzO9ntahXxZe5rDs5qK4Saw==
X-Received: by 10.129.105.136 with SMTP id e130mr20106233ywc.176.1471269804132; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.210.195 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 07:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAE_dhjvBPf6GaqUbikkSehvCx7xqimtpyiG6=TKNX9iZiG782A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160706210829.26812.48474.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAE_dhjvBPf6GaqUbikkSehvCx7xqimtpyiG6=TKNX9iZiG782A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:03:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-e=OguAVye=n=GVSzb2=n7xN_QFhauKoxLoD8yxQDRTAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114715ee0b4fbb053a1cb252
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/tzywJkiWwBGdlvbwUrqS77bSwr0>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis@ietf.org, HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>, hip-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:03:27 -0000

Hi, Julien,

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> I just realized looking at the IESG record for the draft that I didn't
> answer your comment, sorry.
>
> I don't remember how we ended up with writing this as a SHOULD NOT
> (e.g., as opposed to a MUST NOT),  but at least the SHOULD NOT does
> not negatively affect interoperability since, at the end of the day,
> the registrar has the final word, whether it decides to grant a
> lifetime that's in the advertised interval, or grant the out-of-bound
> lifetime that was requested, and the granted lifetime value is
> communicated over to the requester in the REG_RESPONSE.


Thanks for the feedback!

Spencer


> --julien
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Spencer Dawkins
> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-10: 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-hip-rfc5203-bis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This bis draft was an improvement. I did have one question.
> >
> > I'm trying to visualize why
> >
> >    The registrar indicates the minimum and maximum registration lifetime
> >    that it is willing to offer to a requester.  A requester SHOULD NOT
> >    request registration with lifetime greater than the maximum
> >    registration lifetime or smaller than the minimum registration
> >    lifetime.
> >
> > is a SHOULD NOT - why would a requester choose to disregard the SHOULD
> > and send a request registration with (for example) a lifetime greater
> > than the maximum registration lifetime?
> >
> > Is the intention for the requester to allow this, and then (for example)
> > cap the lifetime at the maximum registration lifetime? Or is something
> > else supposed to happen?
> >
> > Whatever the intention is, it might be helpful to provide an explanation
> > about that.
> >
> >
>