Re: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Mon, 19 August 2013 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD8111E827A; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tUwSZBWAfM4E; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A0511E826F; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r7JD80FS005380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:08:02 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd03.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.145]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:07:48 -0400
Received: from mxhub02.corp.emc.com (mxhub02.corp.emc.com [10.254.141.104]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r7JD7l9m025893; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:07:47 -0400
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.99]) by mxhub02.corp.emc.com ([10.254.141.104]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:07:47 -0400
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:07:46 -0400
Thread-Topic: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
Thread-Index: Ac6aqrVVQtelCuouRdyi7Cd0ThxhZgCMHC6g
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7129C4893A1@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7129C489289@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <tslob8x345i.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslob8x345i.fsf@mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "tim.polk@nist.gov" <tim.polk@nist.gov>, "General Area Review Team \(gen-art@ietf.org\)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>, "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:08:55 -0000

> I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that sort of bar for IANA registries in
> general, although I have supported it from time to time.  (My discomfort
> with this has grown significantly since my time as an AD).  I do not
> support that sort of bar for this registry.
> 
> I think we understand each other, but disagree.

I believe that is the case (we understand each other, but disagree).

> The question now is whether you can gain sufficient support to show
> rough consensus for a change in the document or to show that while there
> was rough consensus behind the document in the KARP WG, there's a lack
> of consensus on handling this issue between KARP and some other
> significant segment of the IETF like the security area.

I will simply point to RFC 3365 ("Strong Security Requirements for
Internet Engineering Task Force Standard Protocols") and suggest that it
is relevant to determining what the registration procedure should be
based on how this registry is likely to be used and as an example of
reasons for the IESG to not follow the rough consensus of a WG.

I believe that a discussion of how the registry is likely to be used
in practice would be productive, although I am concerned about statements
that weak password mechanisms are intended to be in scope, even though
the draft (as I read it) excludes them, starting with the draft's title.

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:03 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Sam Hartman; housley@vigilsec.com; tim.polk@nist.gov; Dacheng Zhang
> (zhangdacheng@huawei.com); General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org);
> karp@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [karp] IANA policy for draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08
> 
> >>>>> "Black," == Black, David <david.black@emc.com> writes:
> 
>     Black,> done.  IMHO, we really should be setting a bar that says
>     Black,> that this sort of IETF imprimatur of approval of a crypto
>     Black,> algorithm actually means something.
> 
> 
> 
> Something got manged there.
> I agree that publishing a standards-track document  should endorce the
> algorithm in question.
> 
> I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that sort of bar for IANA registries in
> general, although I have supported it from time to time.  (My discomfort
> with this has grown significantly since my time as an AD).  I do not
> support that sort of bar for this registry.
> 
> I think we understand each other, but disagree.
> 
> The question now is whether you can gain sufficient support to show
> rough consensus for a change in the document or to show that while there
> was rough consensus behind the document in the KARP WG, there's a lack
> of consensus on handling this issue between KARP and some other
> significant segment of the IETF like the security area.