RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
Black_David@emc.com Mon, 16 October 2006 14:45 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZTiV-0007Lk-PF; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:45:23 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZTiU-0007HJ-1N for ips@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:45:22 -0400
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZTiR-00059q-7M for ips@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:45:22 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nirah.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.13]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k9GEjIVG004095; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:45:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com (corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com [10.254.64.53]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k9GEjGVb016508; Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:45:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black_David@emc.com
Received: from CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com ([128.221.62.13]) by corpussmtp3.corp.emc.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:45:03 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:45:01 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E05502B67549@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF9629E5B1.D1C01E24-ONC2257209.002BC7BC-C2257209.002C15E7@il.ibm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02
Thread-Index: Acbw/RAHkvAIZ8GuSl6RnFIGQcU49gAM2N2w
To: Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com, lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2006 14:45:03.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9DB2240:01C6F131]
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.4.0.264935, Antispam-Data: 2006.10.16.71442
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reason='EMC_BODY_1+ -3, EMC_FROM_0+ -2, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0'
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 825e642946eda55cd9bc654a36dab8c2
Cc: ips@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ips@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Storage <ips.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ips@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips>, <mailto:ips-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ips-bounces@ietf.org
Julian and Lars, We could get clever here. The crucial language in RFC 3720 says: For IANA registered keys the string following X# must be registered with IANA and the use of the key MUST be described by an informational RFC. and there's similar language for Y# digest formats and Z# authentication methods. Given the level of review this draft has received (not only on the list, but also in Montreal, I put crucial pieces of this draft's text on the projector for word-by-word review), I don't think there would be any problem with this draft becoming a proposed standard RFC, and it could then update RFC 3720 to change "informational RFC" to "informational, experimental or standards track RFC" in all three places. I would want to issue a WG Last Call on these changes (publish nodearch-key as proposed, standard, update RFC 3720 to allow experimental and standards-track RFCs for X# keys, Y# digests, and Z# authentication methods), so that there is an adequate opportunity for anyone to object. Comments? Thanks, --David (ips WG chair) ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ From: Julian Satran [mailto:Julian_Satran@il.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:04 AM To: Lars Eggert Cc: ips@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02 Lars, Yes we wanted new keys to be publicly documented without requiring authors to go to a strict review (that might be hard to get in several years). In retrospect we should have said "at least informational" although there is (at least in theory) an ordering between RFC "classes". Julo Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de> 16/10/06 03:40 To ips@ietf.org cc Subject Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02 On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:28, Lars Eggert wrote: > Finally - why is this going for Informational and not PS? PS seems > appropriate. To be precise, I saw David's note on this from the document writeup ("This document is being published as Informational because RFC 3720 indicates that this class of key specification should be published as informational.") It's unfortunate that 3720 doesn't also allow publication at Standards Track; I wonder what the rationale for this was. Intuitively, this should be OK, because Standards Track publication has a higher bar. If the WG decides to go for Informational because of 3720, I'm OK with it. It may make sense to add a short note to the introduction explaining this. Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
- [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Dave W
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Julian Satran
- RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Black_David
- Re: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Lars Eggert
- RE: [Ips] AD review of draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodea… Julian Satran