Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05.txt> (HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in USM for SNMP) to Proposed Standard

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 16 April 2015 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638991B2E0D for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 4_WeEwP3tnfN for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 349791B2DFF for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local (c-98-248-47-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.248.47.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t3G4CMs2011709 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 04:12:23 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, warren@kumari.net
references: <20150406163326.19239.91019.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <010e01d076c2$7a30dce0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
x-enigmail-draft-status: N1110
message-id: <552F36A3.7050507@bogus.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 21:12:19 -0700
user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0
mime-version: 1.0
in-reply-to: <010e01d076c2$7a30dce0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rxvhqCb4QnDKSQDovp2VO3eRNljM3w3NX"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_GBYC7Q--N4OBZP-2cAkVhMPZIU>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: <draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05.txt> (HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in USM for SNMP) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 04:12:30 -0000

On 4/14/15 7:51 AM, t.petch wrote:
> Warren
> 
> I am used to seeing downrefs called out in the IETF Last Call notice.
> 
> This I-D certainly has them but the Last Call notice makes no mention of
> them.  Is this ok?

I gave this a little (not a lot) of thought during the ad review.

My interpretation was that downrefs to rfc 2104 are sufficiently
ubiquiious to not merit further discussion let alone further review.  if
that's not an universaly held opinion I suppose we should hear that.

both it and 6234 have visited the downref registry previously in 2104's
case there are something like 200 references to it from subsequent RFCs.

if the secdir would like to start a shooting war over references to HMAC
(which I doubt) I'll respect that but it's not really my wheelhouse.

thanks
joel

> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: <opsawg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 5:33 PM
> 
> 
>>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management
> Area
>> Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document:
>> - 'HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in USM for SNMP'
>>   <draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-20. Exceptionally, comments may
> be
>> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>>    This memo specifies new HMAC-SHA-2 authentication protocols for the
>>    User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3 defined in RFC 3414.
>>
>> The file can be obtained via
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp/
>>
>> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp/ba
> llot/
>>
>>
>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>