Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Ack.

https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/commit/995e1a51964a8a6ac33d5e1e0cc1e40d41cd01ea

Thanks!
Dhruv

Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/
master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-exp-codepoints-04&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.
com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt




On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi EKR,
>>
>> Here is the text that has been added in the working copy -
>>
>>     As stated in [RFC3692], experiments
>>>    using these code points are not intended to be used in general
>>>    deployments and due care taken while assigning the correct
>>>    codepoints.
>>
>>
>
> This doesn't quite seem grammatical. Maybe
>
> "are not intended to be used in general deployments and due care must be
> taken
> to ensure that two experiments with the same code points are not run in
> the same environment".
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> "
>
>>   See [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of
>>>    experimental codepoints.
>>
>>
>> Also RFC3692 is made normative.
>>
>> Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.
>> com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-
>> codepoints-05.txt
>> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-
>> codepoints-04&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/
>> dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But so what? You are not supposed to expect anything other than a
>>>> crash! You are not supposed to run conflicting experiments and failure does
>>>> not need to be graceful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But as I noted in my original review, your document does not say that.
>>> You might argue that RFC 3692 says that (though it's not clear to me that
>>> it precisely does), but as you don't cite it as a normative reference, you
>>> can't rely on that either. If you'd like to modify the document to state
>>> that (or point me to the text in your document which does so), I'll remove
>>> my DISCUSS.
>>>
>>> -Ekr
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing new here! Nothing new in this document. Nothing to
>>>> see, move along now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> *Sent:* 08 January 2018 13:19
>>>> *To:* Adrian Farrel
>>>> *Cc:* The IESG; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on
>>>> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of this document is to adjust the registries to allow
>>>>
>>>> experimentation, not to redefine or refine the meaning of Experimental
>>>> codepoints.
>>>>
>>>> We do draw out the security concern that we think 3692 glossed over,
>>>> but this is
>>>> a reminder to protocol specs or implementers that they must watch out.
>>>> This is
>>>> not a protocol spec and doesn't need to describe how implementations
>>>> handle
>>>> conflicts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, but it does need to describe the impact of what happens when there
>>>> is confusion, which it presently does not. This is not solely a security
>>>> concern but also an interoperability and correctness concern.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Ekr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ciao,
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>