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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

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.  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
>>
>>
>>
>
>