Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Thu, 31 December 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FAC1A702C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:04:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 MSRhnt_4kUmR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29E61A21A1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:04:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:d541:7674:527b:16ca] (unknown [IPv6:2601:401:3:6a00:d541:7674:527b:16ca]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 077F954090E; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:04:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: What to improve? BCP-38/SAC-004 anyone?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <5684FCDB.7010009@mnt.se>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:04:07 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A074CA07-691E-41A7-B1D7-33F4ECBED5A9@puck.nether.net>
References: <7664F94E-F7A6-4556-B1E6-2DE536A7B7FC@frobbit.se> <5684FCDB.7010009@mnt.se>
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5wmQVWWg0G0gkkMqtjUL5MZoXt8>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:04:11 -0000

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 5:00 AM, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
> 
> On 2015-12-31 06:16, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> Is this connected to the fact that not even people developing standards
>> use very same standards?
> 
> The problem is that we don't have enough dogs on our tasting panels: we
> need to get more ops folks directly & actively involved in the IETF.
> 
> Examining some of our success stories I suspect we'd find extensive
> involvement from operations in every case.

Sadly that’s not the case here.

The reason we (as an operator) can’t use BCP-38 is the vendor hardware can’t do it at line-rate and the performance hit is too much to sustain.

Sorry to disappoint.  We even dropped it as a requirement in 2015 because it was clear the gap was getting wider not narrower.

Happy to discuss in person in BA or anywhere else we end up at the same time.

- Jared