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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 18 November 2015 04:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 18D371ACD0E; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:54:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] 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 qkMG6X9VDGhw; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:54:01 -0800 (PST)
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 7DE931ACD35; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tAI4rm9Z093965 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:53:48 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Les Ginsberg <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:53:47 -0600
Message-ID: <4EB015F3-308F-45AE-BFAA-728534A049D0@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <df7e538b70ea43789c6e65fcaed30524@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <20151118040709.15883.3721.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <df7e538b70ea43789c6e65fcaed30524@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5164)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/avpfLHvyKeWC4z2YCYf6w6fkTA8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:18:31 -0800
Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>, "chopps@chopps.org" <chopps@chopps.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-route-preference@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-route-preference@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "isis-chairs@ietf.org" <isis-chairs@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 04:54:03 -0000

On 17 Nov 2015, at 22:46, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:

> 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?

Have to? I guess that's up to you and your AD :-) This was not a 
DISCUSS, and I don't plan to push the point.

>
> 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. :-)

My strictly personal opinion is that it's helpful for the section to 
"show it's work" as it were. Knowing the thought process can be helpful 
to the reader. For example, if a reader thinks of a potential issue, 
it's helpful to know if the working group already thought about it and 
decided it wasn't a problem, or if it's something novel that hasn't been 
considered before.

>
> 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.
>>