IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 04:46 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 BEA591ACD0A; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:46:43 -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 TkovpnWXcdLc; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF3E51ACD08; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:46:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2788; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447822001; x=1449031601; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Qw4wSZkM3UDxiv6HptklH8YQOxdG+tYjaD8cLcM4eQI=; b=YLZB1EAxc8iisRpjMRchYqx05OmcQLHr13SpCOEgCTJU5bhN6s7T0z1L cGmqCCWGmrETQ3F2+3Ahj26FLh4k9wWJehysosiQAURHjL6EcKlyfhrnC zRm7fl56NPs3Y3gA4HWM/epdRSrSNYn/QtXkD/3VQxnOVjuAMuiLJwcHU E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AVAgBfAkxW/4gNJK1egztTbwa8RoIaAQ2BZSGFbgIcgS84FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBAwEjEUUMBAIBCBEEAQEDAiMDAgICMBQBCAgCBAENBQiIHggNrRWQMAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARQEgQGFU4R+hCoRAYM5gUQFh0SLI4NiAYUfiAOBYoRAlikBHwEBQoIRHRaBQHIBg0o6gQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,311,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="47765376"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Nov 2015 04:46:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAI4kPLi019294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 04:46:25 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:46:24 -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; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:46:25 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRIbaazJJehkHitkeY9v+tzonPGJ6hMhfQ
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 04:46:25 +0000
Message-ID: <df7e538b70ea43789c6e65fcaed30524@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <20151118040709.15883.3721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151118040709.15883.3721.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/394N0pgAWscmbq85e9zkBQr8TT0>
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] Ben Campbell'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 04:46:43 -0000

Ben -

Thanx for the review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:07 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-route-preference@ietf.org; isis-chairs@ietf.org;
> chopps@chopps.org; isis-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position 
> draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-0[Les:]  2: 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A security considerations section that says "None." is pretty much the same
> as not having the section.

[Les:] We did think about security. The draft makes no changes to the protocol - it adds no new advertisements nor modifies any existing advertisement. It merely clarifies route preference rules for the existing route types that already exist. So "None" accurately captures the security issues associated with this draft.  Do we actually have to say that? 

The important thing about a security section to me is that it correctly identifies the areas of concern. In this case since there are none it seems to me we have met the requirements admirably. :-)

   Les

 > I assume that means people thought about it, and
> reached the conclusion this was security neutral. It might be helpful to at
> least briefly describe that thought process.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email