Re: [Lwip] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-19: (with DISCUSS)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57EF53A1F06; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:29:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 otMTijGt-dkX; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92c.google.com (mail-ua1-x92c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEE773A1F05; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92c.google.com with SMTP id p12so178255uam.8; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:29:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TY+zStuodQSmz/ukysFmbjC0lqARMj+OPJJh/N7sRr8=; b=UiJ0G2K1YxZH7UGmZ3ELu2RZ0dG/3TxTB27MNlS6Ic0tCYlJozYI0eGvCSqX/ULVFb mdiBCU0p+LLxcHvXyn/fTnMxrNqHTgXzXhKD8BhOrb4YxkEXB7Al85zBREn7nwufyWKZ rRE1Tm6h3Fn5inTV6lhfHKf+UDdWuItqZoeZMNXaZNxZsh/HD4XzNBVHa6Yys+1ZjbZk L7ubTmskyLVCs/ljs+g8q7qmnJSBJ0ICFgy+6k2ZxBCD269W0ESRp8+twnH+2ci/VRnd 7G2xeLkdkPBDsW2soIX8KCBb2tkqvs5mDgHRDvBCuoRWB2CSeTGkH4A5Psq4iQaJAqHL UhWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TY+zStuodQSmz/ukysFmbjC0lqARMj+OPJJh/N7sRr8=; b=LsFcPf1U2Isy+MEHL5Yf6/8GVex9NPaVXzIDL/X07W66KqVJSfVsbxt0eOWiSnvxuZ QCGXjHYX4VeGAMzFS8ILk8JYtKLgNfX5jQgiIAa+S6/c3wj0raVoHBQJy66UxOTGTMko WOBcu6NchogPLzJhtG6OUE2jDlIY0JTe3FloA28+Zjs+oyXj31gAiscmOE5yKCJ8MSMD uFVBsGnc8ewmNYP0/K24TQj4693i53ymv3ZV7Qr1JAbo2umQajbDtpl75Sc9qW2thlkG sWjsa5SWLPTWcmlFVrpJTouIGqSa32TfHy7LcCX7K85H0Rnv1LFxU4kOZHijsSZEakbi AXlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328geBQpc1mDdUtnXDTZydLCHP8WeLcq5+AXYU4EiBbc+B8hjOQ Gz6SbL5Ufqo6VeTQLK31xr69valPAUFmMbq8CYkIaHdYKjw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz4o5PcgPbG82LYaTHur17DGKvn788VIqxR8ssMuSct+ot4ut12/NKlmQ/q+oCPNeLqMMIQ+IAuAVW9wpc8nXY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9f:356f:: with SMTP id o102mr1833408uao.47.1613615365424; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:29:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161356897308.14208.11423622413442209985@ietfa.amsl.com> <116cb13e-22f1-4686-61c3-7b556eea730c@gmail.com> <635aa9d5e4692752f0e9ea4e1293c99b1885f379.camel@ericsson.com> <f0502e89-9e87-769e-52f5-996043c3d97a@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f0502e89-9e87-769e-52f5-996043c3d97a@gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 18:29:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZzMbMjPc9ei1yD91zbkNQCwd8mJtnambMdLeV7ML2Y-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>, Mohit Sethi M <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations@ietf.org>, "lwig-chairs@ietf.org" <lwig-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a90abb05bb931ad2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/hGIhux8Wtx59rKd1vIXLIDw4QnA>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-curve-representations-19: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 02:29:28 -0000

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:57 AM Rene Struik <rstruik.ext@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sure you have much more process experience than I do. However, I have
> trouble understanding how having a IANA section makes this suddenly a
> process violation. Do I understand correctly that, in your mind, this
> process issue would be moot if I would simply partition the doc into two
> parts A and B, where C:=A+B is the current document and where A=C\B and
> B:={Section 12.2, Section 12.3}?
>
> [...]
>
> I simply would like to understand, since I do not right now.
>

Hopefully this helps rather than muddies things further, and Magnus (and
Erik, and Ben, etc.) can correct me if I'm wrong:

The first issue: The Last Call announcement for this document indicated
that the working group wants it to have Informational status when
published.  After that Last Call was completed, our procedures assert that
the document, with any Last Call feedback worked into it, has IETF
consensus to be published with that specific status.  Changing the status
being sought to Standards Track without also running a new Last Call saying
so violates our procedures; the document can't go forward unless that
status change is reverted, or a second Last Call is done indicating the new
intended status.  This point has nothing at all to do with the content of
the document, but rather the path it has followed through the process so
far.

The second issue: The LWIG working group does not appear (on a cursory
read) to be chartered to produce a document that does this sort of work
with cryptographic algorithms.  Since a working group's charter is in
effect a contract between the working group and the IESG to describe
exactly the work it will produce, the delta between what this document is
doing and what LWIG's charter says is large enough that this is something
worthy of discussion and resolution before the document should advance.  If
the charter is wrong, let's renegotiate it; if this work needs to be done
in a different venue, let's make that arrangement; etc.

I believe Magnus is right to put the brakes on until these issues are
sorted out.

-MSK