Re: [karp] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-08

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 13 August 2013 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 8297121E819B; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 VCSG0zwi-Gpp; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A6321E8182; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5474D2CC48; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 22:06:52 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNMQpgcndOya; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 22:06:51 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56AE62CC5B; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 22:06:46 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7129C2B7440@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 03:06:45 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5D641C7D-768F-4FB0-8DFC-D2C247E0F63A@piuha.net>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7129C2B7440@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "Sam Hartman \(hartmans@painless-security.com\)" <hartmans@painless-security.com>, "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>, "karp@ietf.org" <karp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [karp] [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of 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: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:06:59 -0000

Thank you for your review, David. The Gen-ART reviews are important feedback for me to understand where I should look more closely. 

In this case your review caused me to read the draft in detail, and I now have similar question as you did. I have raised a Discuss in my IESG ballot so that we can talk about those issues with the authors. In particular, it would be useful to discuss whether FCFS or some other assignment policy is most appropriate for the algorithm ID and KDF registries. I too thought Expert Review would have been a more natural fit. But I do not mind another policy, as long as we have a good reason for picking it. Secondly, I too was wondering what the relationship of this database is to the PAD.

Jari