Re: [Isis-wg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02: (with COMMENT)

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB0B1B3873; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:59:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.086
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 PWb-8Rfs_kLe; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:59:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE0B81B3872; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 07:59:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3560; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447862380; x=1449071980; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=WyHRHaCsYbUv2mxmUc6VPeYqSsmRaegsHGWSAcrgUPU=; b=OmPtT9QHAIp3Ec/SEh+9z93S+N/V7XsULyI33JPdNLvA8Tnozz+93l4L dk692Wfsd2Qz9uTcDoHDZ5mQXEeDp2sfZXJEcSO2ev9n/xYPGdgxzHrqA gcWXctY+qRIKmFM5l3RXPD8tcry/fCEwOCWzj3wNsxOs0gY5pA0hLTLUv 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D8AQBon0xW/5JdJa1egztTbwa8MIIaA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZSGFbgIcgS04FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBBCMRRQwEAgEIEQQBAQMCIwMCAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?wFAEICAIEAQ0FCIgmDa5lkD8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEUBIEBhVOEf?= =?us-ascii?q?oQqEQGDOYFEBYdFjwUBhSCIA4FihECDJY8Tg3EBHwEBQoJEgUByAYNKOoEHAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?B?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,313,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="50849285"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Nov 2015 15:59:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAIFxdl2010438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:59:39 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:59:39 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:59:39 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRIfyad4RToV1FHkK3wZb+lqWUNp6h7cYA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:59:39 +0000
Message-ID: <6feb004ca51e4f4c83d7072aef063ed7@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <20151118122813.23315.14458.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151118122813.23315.14458.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.121.24]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/2aafXXRusRhDJNdBt1z3HcHvkao>
Cc: "chopps@chopps.org" <chopps@chopps.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-route-preference@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-route-preference@ietf.org>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:59:42 -0000

Stephen -

Thanx for the review.
Inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:28 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-route-preference@ietf.org; isis-chairs@ietf.org;
> chopps@chopps.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-
> 02: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02: 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-isis-route-preference/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - I was surprised that this only updates one RFC. But if that's felt to be
> sufficient, that's fine.
> 
[Les:] The key text comes from the introduction:

"This   document is viewed as a clarification (NOT correction) of [RFC5302]
   and [RFC5305] and a correction of the route preference rules defined
   in [RFC5308] to be consistent with the rules for IPv4.  It also makes
   explicit that the same rules apply for the Multi-Topology(MT)
   equivalent TLVs 235 and 237."

I guess your concern is whether we should indicate that this updates RFC 5302 and RFC 5305 as well.
My feeling is "no" as those documents are still completely accurate and usable on their own. Still, clarifying text is aimed at helping people interpret these documents correctly - so it certainly is reasonable to ask people to read this draft in addition to RFC 5302 and RFC 5305. Would an "updates" indication help in that regard? Hard to argue against that. This then becomes a "legal" discussion in regards to what IETF intends "updates" to mean. I am happy to defer to consensus on this.


> - Appendix A seems to imply that section 5 could claim that this fixes a
> potential security issue, but it's fine that the authors prefer brevity in section
> 5 (in this case:-)
> 
[Les:] The document fixes an interoperability issue. I don’t see that this has anything to do with security.

   Les