Re: [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 13 April 2017 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60685126BF6; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 BlgyrRsLw5ZZ; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9355312426E; Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v3D2acJb087778 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Les Ginsberg" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, "hannes@gredler.at" <hannes@gredler.at>, "draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@ietf.org>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0500
Message-ID: <23224D77-F6FD-4F8E-825B-57E457F5C772@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <02b668c3edd5415e8327f7f7346047ad@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <149203028857.15792.640027111234645899.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <02b668c3edd5415e8327f7f7346047ad@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/9gJ7zuWCVh4ZUWroogJQeHA1ass>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 02:36:46 -0000

On 12 Apr 2017, at 16:40, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:

> Ben -
>
> Thanx for the review.
> Inline.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 1:51 PM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org; Hannes Gredler; 
>> isis-chairs@ietf.org;
>> hannes@gredler.at; isis-wg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: 
>> (with
>> COMMENT)
>>
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: 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-auto-conf/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -4: "In general, the use of authentication is incompatible with auto-
>>    configuration as it requires some manual configuration."
>>
>> What are the consequences/risks due to that incompatibility?
>>
>
> [Les:] The "incompatibility" is that now some manual configuration is 
> required.
> The intent of the draft is to define a profile such that a compliant 
> implementation could simply boot up w/o any configuration and be able 
> to interoperate with other routers running in auto-config mode. If 
> authentication is desired then at a minimum the authentication key has 
> to be configured which means the zero touch capability is compromised. 
> That is all we are trying to say.

Sorry, my question was not clear. Obviously there is value in running in 
auto-config mode, and some people might choose to skip authentication so 
they can do it. Is it possible to give a brief description (or cite one 
elsewhere) of the tradeoffs involved in that decision?

>
>    Les