IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Red: RFC8907 (was: Re: Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?)

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Fri, 13 November 2020 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=85868112a2=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 4F6423A0D69; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:09:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 g4vh6LzvN02Y; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) (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 D51D93A09D6; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 07:09:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LLE2K16-MBX04.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K16-MBX04.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTPS id 0ADF93vw035162; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:09:03 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector5401; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hpmHmOgi3EUndvp6Sx6H6UM4bLMmds6Hapw0s7FdvFT8gcvgMcON6pInhWjItd5yDF/XhbKXVdgtT5u5zkvKULKY3Mgib5iJk6ivxm4XK6tiwUdOc8ZjL0HDaj4lzokNLXixEGBdJI6A9emLrWedhiWvNHjXqTjsZym2F2XkZV05h7uCaOKEmXhXX8HRtfYAmo4suHzJFcBxKEwEw+lC8OUe0T3hpzvGRrJWBrv3FxSlDqZc4eLgjSpYzRmCtfii0L8XqIHO1boN+hoQkCzT4zat3CXGjYj8a7z4tX0rGN0ZlUDQeGvgPA1IYxse0dp90HtU3eSUcHd31KJfkbMizQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector5401; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=WavwhlNDJRcpeQcbk0zzTQaFEK8+AdSS/IbPmgoLwLM=; b=H1QOJXep6VnTSVvRtjcQdmIT6RgeYtQz3AfzpiZ0bGsk2kO6vhQdE6G3fKbd+XTJhycJm27VLdT9Lihy1I9M6CCAJbGKJYTL4p7SqI5gWW/Ajxv/0+CegxkzGhZ0mEWZFKUiMAASsGrbtW+zahGhQWg2Z7ws61StGZiuwKdn3iZ4HASMCGURIdzfMgpbAbUez9EDMNfP+SMgztj2AUER5D9w5QaExQsVYOjtauF5Y7GVCYVZjC8IDYh9C8aCmgVnGGcZtb+yz63mCexxNSH8J9IHCO+QAKNAGgpqaHuxZJKuRyOvnRhW6PqE9mXXzWfafgdjJWjVd3JXVl5cMbOWVg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ll.mit.edu; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ll.mit.edu; dkim=pass header.d=ll.mit.edu; arc=none
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
CC: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Red: RFC8907 (was: Re: Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?)
Thread-Index: AQHWuT+6Ja7lOcsUskmju09TjLO6IKnFEhwAgAAqlACAAFp2AIAAQFmA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:08:58 +0000
Message-ID: <3FF16053-00C1-4A3A-AFC5-67EFAEFC61AE@ll.mit.edu>
References: <20201111080817.g4oc75o5ufwtxd5p@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <873CA76D-E744-45CA-A82C-1228798619CB@tzi.org> <20201111092125.GF39343@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <079EB1DE-694E-403B-A9C5-F4ECD28DBC59@cisco.com> <20201111150739.GG39343@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <e195e3de-5d4a-8416-7e36-c17cec32af03@gmail.com> <9215_1605164101_5FACDC45_9215_16_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031578800@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <758CFA2F-E353-409D-987C-000C23EA0EC3@tzi.org> <22094_1605167175_5FACE847_22094_64_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031578836@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <9C197251-812E-4687-A585-4EF8B702E466@cisco.com> <20201112220244.GD39343@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <EF3EB8B3-3ABF-4854-95DB-49BDB6C953BD@deployingradius.com> <3903.1605228892@localhost> <CE8A4154-80AE-45CB-96E4-D7864832705A@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE8A4154-80AE-45CB-96E4-D7864832705A@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.42.20101102
authentication-results: dmarc.ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc.ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ll.mit.edu;
x-originating-ip: [129.55.200.20]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: dbfdf6d9-71da-4079-c3dc-08d887e60c27
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3P110MB0420:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3P110MB0420A21B3315DF57DB5C3AAA90E60@BN3P110MB0420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN3P110MB0467.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(2906002)(66616009)(64756008)(71200400001)(4326008)(66556008)(86362001)(53546011)(6506007)(5660300002)(186003)(110136005)(99936003)(8676002)(8936002)(6512007)(66476007)(75432002)(2616005)(26005)(6486002)(76116006)(66946007)(66446008)(498600001)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha256"; boundary="B_3688106937_815291262"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN3P110MB0467.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: dbfdf6d9-71da-4079-c3dc-08d887e60c27
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Nov 2020 15:08:58.7896 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 83d1efe3-698e-4819-911b-0a8fbe79d01c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3P110MB0420
X-OriginatorOrg: ll.mit.edu
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-11-13_10:2020-11-13, 2020-11-13 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2009150000 definitions=main-2011130096
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Fi1r1DfEs8c5prjpNFujWQ0OqvQ>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Red: RFC8907 (was: Re: Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?)
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: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:09:08 -0000

+1

From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2020 at 01:24
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Red: RFC8907 (was: Re: Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?)

We need to back away from using bureaucratic process that will chase away developers for no good reason.  Do you think Guy Harris has the time or inclination to do this twice for no good reason?

Even broken as it was, TACACS+ was NOT an ISE document.  Neither was JSON.  There is NO precedent for a spec we want to move forward as an IETF spec to go through the ISE.  If it’s within this group’s purview, we should take it.  The ISE is a relief valve, not a go to.  We would be misusing that process, and I would likely object to doing so.

If people insist that the document should be informational, fine, but even that is a lie.  This is an evolving de facto standard, and not recognizing it as de jure seems silly.  Worse, by forcing people down this road, we are doubling the amount of work to get to a proposed standard.  And for what?  Do we really think we’re going to change that much even in that process?  Looking back it was even silly for JSON to have gone through informational.  It was a waste of everyone’s time.  The final stage was what was important, and the mods were modest.

TACACS+ was different.  The IETF would not have endorsed TACACS+ in its current form, but having it written was important for both implementors and deployments to understand what they were seeing a lot of on the wire.

Recognize why the rules exist and use them appropriately.  This should go forward as a PS candidate.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email