Re: [ippm] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Fri, 29 June 2018 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D69130DD9; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 g7gUw_FRZ_kF; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A1B130DC1; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049295.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5TIMbxJ001693; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:25:56 -0400
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2jwr87jp47-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:25:49 -0400
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5TIP94A030978; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:25:10 -0500
Received: from zlp30496.vci.att.com (zlp30496.vci.att.com [135.46.181.157]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5TIP2IH030831; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:25:02 -0500
Received: from zlp30496.vci.att.com (zlp30496.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30496.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id A180040002D6; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:25:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30496.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 80F9440002B8; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:25:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5TIP27W008023; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:25:02 -0500
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.178.11]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5TIOt8t007546; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:24:55 -0500
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njmtcas2.research.att.com [135.207.255.47]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1BAF1AD6; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:24:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from njmtexg4.research.att.com ([fe80::8cd:baa3:219e:5bd4]) by njmtcas2.research.att.com ([fe80::d550:ec84:f872:cad9%15]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:24:40 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUDWs/lWqORGgDw0elzuaTZxNGN6R1/6yAgAERnRmAAHwcMA==
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:24:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF4A931D74@njmtexg4.research.att.com>
References: <152950984681.28540.15458643208076088093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6F0F300E-F699-4DE2-8C13-710264957452@gmail.com> <54331c1c-02d4-b50c-07ce-43532fc86583@gmail.com> <CAKKJt-ckab9FxN1t-nd=gFeGJuU9GnSn337ZWPGnj=5n+zxwFQ@mail.gmail.com> <018301d40f95$b7f02760$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <018301d40f95$b7f02760$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [69.141.203.172]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-06-29_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1806290194
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/1kyCqD5dcgidYeuDzIApKkDwlQc>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:26:04 -0000

-encrypt- is still misspelled, thanks for catching that.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 6:41 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
> Cc: ippm-chairs@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-
> yang@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-
> 11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Spencer
> 
> Perhaps one for a Note to the RFC Editor
> 
> -12 still has
>          bit unauth-test-encrpyt-control {
> which AM suggested should be
>          bit unauth-test-encrypt-control {
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
> To: "Ignas Bagdonas" <ibagdona@gmail.com>
> Cc: <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; <ippm@ietf.org>;
> <draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org>; "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 3:24 PM
> 
> > Dear Authors,
> >
> > Thank you for a quick and productive Discussion on Ignas's ballot
> position
> > on this draft.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:32 AM Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >> 3. Key storage. The document defines its own way of storing
> keys -
> > > while there
> > > >> are multiple existing ways to store keys (routing key-chain
> model,
> > > I2NSF, IPsec
> > > >> model, netconf-keystore). Why yet another key storage mechanism
> is
> > > required?
> > > >> What could be reused from other existing mechanisms?
> > > > Precisely. When we started work on this draft, there were plethora
> of
> > > ideas on how to store keys. We borrowed the idea from what is now
> the
> > > ietf-key-chain module to define the key chain. And we followed the
> KISS
> > > principle by incorporating what was absolutely needed by TWAMP.
> > >
> > > That is understood and probably can be justified for this particular
> > > model. But the cost of this approach is yet another way of storing
> key
> > > information.
> >
> > I saw that Ignas cleared his Discuss here, but did have a question
> about
> > where the resolution ended up.
> >
> > I understood Ignas to be asking two things - where did this way of
> storing
> > keys come from, and why was an existing way of storing the keys not
> chosen?
> >
> > I understand that Ignas cleared his Discuss, based on the explanation
> in
> > this e-mail thread.
> >
> > I wonder if it is worth a sentence or two, to explain that in the
> draft
> > ("we started with this key storage model, and left out parts we didn't
> > need", or something like that).
> >
> > I'm reviewing changes today, so expect to be sending the e-mail
> approving
> > publication pretty soon.
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > > > Having the answers for the three points that you have raised,
> would you
> > > still have a DISCUSS. If so, which issue, do you want to see
> addressed?
> > >
> > > I am happy with the answers, will clear the DISCUSS. The one that I
> am
> > > somewhat less happy with is the key storage one - from the
> perspective
> > > of both model developer and application developer, additional model
> that
> > > does mostly the same thing is getting towards both to the
> duplication of
> > > the work and encouraging the divergence of the ways how similar
> things
> > > are done. The root of the problem is far deeper than this draft -
> there
> > > does not appear to be an overall coordination of how the different
> > > models bind together into something that allows to use different
> models
> > > in the context of the whole system.
> >