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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 10 April 2017 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECBDC126BFD; Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf@ietf.org, Hannes Gredler <hannes@gredler.at>, isis-chairs@ietf.org, hannes@gredler.at, isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.49.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149185805690.3125.12295919644509441476.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:00:56 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/bIvTLRcxHMapwgtqF87AvBDun1I>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-auto-conf-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:00:57 -0000

Eric Rescorla 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:


I am having trouble reconciling 3.4.4 and 3.4.6.

3.4.4 seems to tell us how to handle the situation where both System-Id
and Router-Fingerprint are identical:

   If the fingerprints are identical in both content and length (and
   state of the S bit is identical) and the duplication is detected in
   hellos then the both routers MUST generate a new System ID and
   restart the protocol.

And then 3.4.6 says:

   Also note that the conditions for detecting duplicate System
   ID will NOT be satisfied because both the System ID and the Router-
   Fingerprint will be identical.

So, I am confused.

"entropy" is already a collective noun, so I think if you want to
pluralize it, you need to say "sources of entropy"

I am surprised that you are recommending HMAC-MD5, but I guess that's
how IS-IS rolls?