IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 20 May 2020 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231B53A0A6E; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 bhZP1yR4fq64; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D30013A0A51; Wed, 20 May 2020 08:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E69389FA; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:48:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MCwPW4CK4UD3; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:48:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91671389F9; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:48:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7810E11A; Wed, 20 May 2020 11:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <158969448080.20571.5288514293121823581@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <158969448080.20571.5288514293121823581@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 11:50:49 -0400
Message-ID: <1349.1589989849@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/2yx_m5W1z4n9cxqgN-UkkKvimdY>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:50:58 -0000

Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > The shepherd writeup contains this remark, which made me squint a bit:
    > "More security review was asked for by the WG at various [times], and
    > it is not clear that this input will be taken into account."  Why's
    > that?

When I did the review of comments, there were a few comments/threads
in the archives which did not clearly have a followup action/commit/diff.
I am not sure if the WG decided that the comments were not relevant, or if
changes were made but not acknowledged.  I don't know if the commenters
are happy with the result, or still waiting for a response.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email