IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11.txt> (Data Fields for In-situ OAM) to Proposed Standard

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 02 December 2020 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FA53A133A; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:34:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 JYlQ3dLQNuwj; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18AA33A13BB; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 0B2FY0l2002383 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Dec 2020 10:34:05 -0500
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:34:00 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "acm@research.att.com" <acm@research.att.com>, "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20201202153400.GD64351@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160624221011.1004.4337499034959566457@ietfa.amsl.com> <5FC76E4A.1000804@btconnect.com> <52A201F5-A78A-4E71-99F2-7ADA7E467B6E@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <52A201F5-A78A-4E71-99F2-7ADA7E467B6E@akamai.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/hQZ39fSh5gHA4DHziA4NedSqf-4>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11.txt> (Data Fields for In-situ OAM) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:34:20 -0000

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 03:32:00PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Let me comment on this. I've been one of the three TLS registry experts for a couple of years. TL;DR I think the draft is not in conflict with how things are done.
> 
> 
> On 12/2/20, 5:37 AM, "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
>     This I-D seems at odds with RFC8126 over the use of Expert Review in s.8.7
> 
>     ' The responsible AD will appoinht ...'
>     RFC8126 seems clear that the IESG appoints and may do so in advance and 
>     having more than one is recommended
> 
> Well, the AD is part of the IESG. From what I have seen, registry experts are always appointed by the AD's, as they are expected to be the subject matter experts.

A single AD is tasked with finding volunteers to be expert(s), but the IESG
as a whole approves them.

-Ben

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email