Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 27 September 2018 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1847130E61; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 zoESOE5DzoUh; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu [18.9.25.13]) (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 44AC5130E64; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190d-935ff70000003e84-20-5bacc1e421d1
Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 29.E6.16004.5E1CCAB5; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:41:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w8RBfMpU000782; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:41:23 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w8RBfI1X020872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:41:20 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 06:41:18 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: David Waltermire <david.waltermire@nist.gov>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd.all@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180927114117.GZ24695@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <153790283647.5258.15634056350853857580@ietfa.amsl.com> <a3e1e6216dbc46db8c717d5dd2946ea0@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20180926211104.GQ24695@kduck.kaduk.org> <149d5d345afc462f9c5e5770079aaf0e@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20180926230621.GW24695@kduck.kaduk.org> <31f78bd59e874b18b7ab5d91a7db4aa8@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <20180927012051.GX24695@kduck.kaduk.org> <0491b66f637344eb9ecb20c1a9d651a6@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <0491b66f637344eb9ecb20c1a9d651a6@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrOKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrfv04Jpog/bdXBYbe/6xWXxfr2ix 4c9GdotnG+ezWJx4soLV4sPChywObB5Tfm9k9Viy5CeTx7WTf1kDmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4 Mlbu3sZYcEOk4vyBEywNjI0CXYycHBICJhInJl9m6WLk4hASWMwk8ffULmYIZyOjxJ3rT9kg nKtMEgsutLKDtLAIqErsvvwezGYTUJFo6L4M1MHBISJgJLH4uTZIPbPAdCaJDwensYPEhQX8 JKacEQMp5wXatulzMyPEzA3MEhu7JjBDJAQlTs58wgJiMwuoS/yZdwlsJrOAtMTyfxwQYXmJ 5q2zwco5BVwlfrwEuY2TQ1RAWWJv3yH2CYyCs5BMmoVk0iyESbOQTFrAyLKKUTYlt0o3NzEz pzg1Wbc4OTEvL7VI10gvN7NELzWldBMjOA4keXcw/rvrdYhRgINRiYc3Yv3qaCHWxLLiytxD jJIcTEqivAp7gUJ8SfkplRmJxRnxRaU5qcWHGCU4mJVEeEvWrYkW4k1JrKxKLcqHSUlzsCiJ 805oWRwtJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk5Xh4FCS4H13AKhRsCg1PbUiLTOnBCHNxMEJMpwHaDjrQZDh xQWJucWZ6RD5U4y6HC9mdMxgFmLJy89LlRLnlQEZJABSlFGaBzcHlL4ksvfXvGIUB3pLmHc6 SBUPMPXBTXoFtIQJaInIAbAlJYkIKakGRrdlC7tVT5V0nmy+Gu5ioym0W8qW84uMydfZj7is tRQ+hP6Ib75YlSdu0OI9Tbnq/dO5JTev9h+4Lq3zoEucbX9295elPxtFth/wWNZmv3ZJtMCU nMnaIVLWXJ5cX05wL5edkdYspeh+/b/O1cyTgkc+Nh/+1W7+nV3TJcL3pt369XWcuYuuKrEU ZyQaajEXFScCAFBFSaY6AwAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_QZ_W4SMPeZyibxIxPfq6dzhaKw>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:41:30 -0000

Hi Les,

I'm happy to leave this question to Alvaro's judgment; as you know, I
included it in the non-blocking portion of my ballot position.

I appreciated the dedication and rigor you put into your service as a DE,
and hope that all DEs can do the same.

Thanks,

Benjamin

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 05:26:19AM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Benjamin -
> 
> It is not my intent to engage in a debate with you.
> 
> I serve as Designated Expert for a number of IS-IS registries. I consider it my responsibility to understand the technical content of the drafts which make changes to the registries for which I serve in this role. I do not look for or expect technical content in the IANA sections - I only expect them to be accurate in terms of the changes requested/completed to the registries.
> 
> I have no doubt that we still disagree. If there is some consensus to make changes I will certainly listen - but if left up to me I would leave the IANA section as is.
> 
>    Les
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 6:21 PM
> > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> > Cc: David Waltermire <david.waltermire@nist.gov>ov>; secdir@ietf.org;
> > lsr@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16
> > 
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:24:31PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> > > Benjamin -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-1.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In particular (emphasis added):
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > " The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to
> > >
> > >    provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and
> > >
> > >    instructions for IANA.  Technical documentation should reside in
> > >
> > >    other parts of the document…”
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think what you propose is not consistent with the intent of the IANA
> > section.
> > 
> > What about Section 1.1, "guidance describing the conditions under which
> > new values should be assigned [...] is needed", or section 1.3's checklist:
> > 
> >    7.  If you're using a policy that requires a designated expert
> >        (Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5
> >        and provide review guidance to the designated expert (see
> >        Section 5.3).
> > 
> > Section 4.5 (Expert Review) even goes into more detail, though I'll stop
> > quoting now.
> > 
> > -Benjamin