IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-05: (with DISCUSS)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 26 May 2015 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFA61A016B; Tue, 26 May 2015 07:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.122
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 dER7f-UcgAy3; Tue, 26 May 2015 07:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com (mail-ie0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D2CF1A0163; Tue, 26 May 2015 07:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iepj10 with SMTP id j10so93892856iep.3; Tue, 26 May 2015 07:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=G8HWaj8vAIDmKfo0870vSH8V+rSe2+LTmBkcuW4uFLQ=; b=rx69mEOx+jYB5CURbUuK5jH4tz2eoEHMuRUrLfqiBiZ38vxdF32NA6A+8pM3a8KIeS FZ/ydbIXuZcBcUmVB4b0blq17jFymCAByWkx+4jyxrStl/P3tW/VS32Su6Tft4vjUAMD D1H3W8gXA5ga9Fa3LdEf4ejDoyACmZzJYm2Ee9llPtHZIaSDvi73X8tcTU+RGUxIvKIb 6v4zl9W90qR0RzXSyoYpICguzp/nXqCZ/K6rTF0oVWVE3F89VtPxG1N+UVrj9SG2UFcm +MRvbDKsTI1+UZilAJ07P1SdsFZ2uU6g7evVW1FJ2K7/oIBGmZ3mGXgf1f7nerocq3Km jLSQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.171.202 with SMTP id nv10mr30138587icc.30.1432652283825; Tue, 26 May 2015 07:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.3.195 with HTTP; Tue, 26 May 2015 07:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150526130833.24322.71081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150526130833.24322.71081.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:58:03 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 00BrAaurV2ASvZMNKtHEJl5_Ej0
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+5TfctzkFW4OtOXDtQpENBhEQW72YNQj9+tNyoS0Oj8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/KrR1VjuDOQBopb0kHMkiHmVaYz8>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis@ietf.org, pim-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, pim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pim] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-05: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:58:05 -0000

> (2) Is it ok for an IS to depend on a PS for it's MTI security
> mechanism? (I think it is, but yeah, someone else might not.)

I look at this as saying that the protocol itself is Internet
Standard, but the MTI security part is, for now, Proposed Standard.
That seems like a perfectly sensible situation to me.

(And as to the downref, after the last and n-th round of silliness
about that, I now have Murray and Klensin discussing an update to BCP
97 to make it clear that good judgment in this regard is more
important than ticking process boxes.)

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email