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

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 27 September 2018 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
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 933DC130DF2; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.956
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.456, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Of31hzJrkFiV; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87AD6130DEE; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 22:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2978; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1538025982; x=1539235582; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=NTXAMnSjWP4kt7yi0+9lnWR1x+30hqzvoZ70OThiW4U=; b=a1Co/edRSylA6oG1+VOZ8eyrtyKxRseCFQ+Gcqw0wARWYPjOR1+mQrnP fGne8dJu+KR2wX2OOcbsN4H5TY83hdNmvw36y3+pn5yfAQ1k9GgZgvXV/ 2WlgM7/z+fl/PHDESP8i1XubHwHHRj+H0uM1ar6sFBirYjvle4Nt9mzER k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AaAACEaKxb/4ENJK1bDgsBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQEBgVGCDmV/KAqDaogVjDCCDYM9kxKBegsjhEkCF4NmITQ?= =?us-ascii?q?YAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFOAEBAQEDIxE3DgwEAgEGAhEEAQEBAgImAgICMBUICAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EDgUIgxqCAQ+HVZtNgS6KCwWBC4lzF4FBP4ERAYMSgxsBAQIBggSCW4JXAp0?= =?us-ascii?q?KCQKGQYliH4FHhFKHfoEei3yIcAIRFIElHTiBVXAVgyeLFoUEOm8BjE6BHgE?= =?us-ascii?q?B?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,309,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="176784642"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Sep 2018 05:26:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w8R5QK8b003219 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:26:20 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:26:19 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:26:19 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
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>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16
Thread-Index: AQHUVQPqnQ0QGOOP8EOqsf/gazaoC6UC9FjAgABwTwD//8fJ0IAAWG2A//+wjNCAAHUKAP//7rRg
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:26:19 +0000
Message-ID: <0491b66f637344eb9ecb20c1a9d651a6@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <20180927012051.GX24695@kduck.kaduk.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.8.175]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/aKh31GKEnhBmEJZXEtMIPpKB58Y>
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 05:26:25 -0000

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