Re: [Lsvr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing-01 (to end 21 May 2020)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 07 May 2020 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717BB3A0E3F for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 aaveqW1tA7bw for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 905263A0E58 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 May 2020 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D51B300B69 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id z_FhGAdX5jTX for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:06:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF7A4300A01; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Message-Id: <AA246C13-7D42-46EF-B2D4-955D4B26F411@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 17:06:39 -0400
Cc: draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing@ietf.org, gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com, victor@jvknet.com
To: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/BVi40ARJd-18xWEd8M91_7d4EjI>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing-01 (to end 21 May 2020)
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 21:06:54 -0000

While I would prefer the PKI-based signature mechanisms, I understand the reasons that the TOFU mechanism is included as well.  For this reason, I support adoption as is.

I believe that the document needs to have a normative reference to RFC 5280 for certificate validation.

Russ


--- Original Message ---
Subject: [Lsvr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing-01 (to end 21 May 2020)
From: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
To: "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
CC: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>om>, "draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing@ietf.org" <draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 09:27:27 +0000

Hi All,

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing-01 (May 7 - May 21)

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing-01/

During your discussion in the WG Adoption Call, the chairs are looking for more context as only a 'yeh' or 'ney'.

Please indicate the following things:
1) Support to adopt draft " draft-ymbk-lsvr-l3dl-signing-01" as LSVR WG document?
2) Are there any technical issues with this draft?
3) Which are current pain-points in the draft requiring additional content and technical attention?
4) What is missing from this draft?

The authors (or anybody else) of this draft should send their IPR statements in response to this email.

Kind Regards,
Gunter & Victor
LSVR WG co-chairs