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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 27 September 2018 01:21 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 739CB12777C; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:21:04 -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 o_i-MWVSv6rG; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu [18.7.68.35]) (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 CA03A130D7A; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074423-40dff70000005232-61-5bac307bd9b9
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-6.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id A4.60.21042.B703CAB5; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:21:00 -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 w8R1KvvF020482; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:20:57 -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 w8R1Kq3X022058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Sep 2018 21:20:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 20:20:52 -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: <20180927012051.GX24695@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <31f78bd59e874b18b7ab5d91a7db4aa8@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrCKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrVtjsCbaYN4nNouNPf/YLL6vV7TY 8Gcju8WzjfNZLE48WcFq8WHhQxYHNo8pvzeyeixZ8pPJ49rJv6wBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglc GWdObmct2MhRseb1H5YGxi1sXYwcHBICJhK/P3t2MXJxCAksZpKYMu8xC4SzkVHi1PIt7BDO VSaJxfefsYB0sAioSixaVdXFyMnBJqAi0dB9mRkkLCJgJLH4uTZIObPAdCaJDwensYPEhQX8 JKacEQMp5wXa1XZ3NjPEyFNMEi+vTGCESAhKnJz5hAXEZhZQl/gz7xLYTGYBaYnl/zggwvIS zVtng4U5BVwlnp2xAwmLCihL7O07xD6BUXAWkkGzkAyahTBoFpJBCxhZVjHKpuRW6eYmZuYU pybrFicn5uWlFuma6eVmluilppRuYgRFALuL8g7Gl33ehxgFOBiVeHgj1q+OFmJNLCuuzD3E KMnBpCTKq7AXKMSXlJ9SmZFYnBFfVJqTWnyIUYKDWUmEN1dxTbQQb0piZVVqUT5MSpqDRUmc d2LL4mghgfTEktTs1NSC1CKYrAwHh5IEb7A+UKNgUWp6akVaZk4JQpqJgxNkOA/Q8H0gNbzF BYm5xZnpEPlTjLocL2Z0zGAWYsnLz0uVEufNBykSACnKKM2DmwNKXBLZ+2teMYoDvSXMKwhM Y0I8wKQHN+kV0BImoCUTelaALClJREhJNTD6x/5nXnFJ5l3Oig/+zgsfaC97E+P0iDthmZGK 6MXzB9JudoT7qz9s03xVfe1DW+KmV++Kf2bF+lr9T3mWK3DFs/zJf5udj7I219em/pG4m7kw 3op1z++UVR2BHw3jVrCKFaXenn/xn9vUcDmnogVBDN98zu94XzWr9WjgmW+hoS7KPkyrtFYr sRRnJBpqMRcVJwIA8ONQRDcDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/egnCXcZ4t_i_vrWX4UARF8p6YtY>
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 01:21:04 -0000

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