Re: [regext] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05

Warren Kumari <> Tue, 07 April 2020 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FBA3A043A for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 05:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Ii3a8Ti8_fX for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 05:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E52E3A0440 for <>; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 05:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 19so3377446ljj.7 for <>; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 05:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N1ny4Am+q0INi9ZSWSGEtY09cDEfegpmwc8omPh/yzg=; b=fMcPFNRZ0VB6STdTysCVxS+0Kw2eJ6ONvNs1wiyJ0bvBClxdukEsACdRJ3hCsDdyDf 5CJPbSOIP5u3S0KeFQGpZ3NEsg86L6ugKrxcucWost+a5PPZ43JRCd0urrA7SLM2HfT7 glC9rKejXkuzRwLVJ7YuX3mvJKFV1t873jAZkeP1SyZ+6aRPf5SGgmKj6RDwdXz+XLnJ 3OPCExTWiv+qJ6AibH3SKp2GN2q3ol/mzdhySTQuI3FjhJ0YeLfttRAbksY5rdl5LAy1 lNSvnlOushLNbyh7KfIfI8LbPsiBHkUji3xdoZxvayWszxSWYhf4K0RucsUZktFNklTw jWtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N1ny4Am+q0INi9ZSWSGEtY09cDEfegpmwc8omPh/yzg=; b=JDBEgWNp7ET8ezMQ+1nceJtp9SQRv5Qb5LAE6/9AOThTS2xk6ifVJjWohCnvgF83W2 dup0M3f3kwoN8L1VGFySXrdOcR4/KdpFmqOy+TZQqOVF2cwaV9DLfuOMOOy3Mj5nYvmW /bhs6ELw5l9rwCQNAQIkPgXAQgHa5fRBAr+6u1jmhQP5yLOKUUhfXnFDpqj3whlNaA+h XCeEhRI23bNgeXf8XxlFZJhliM8K49zxz97qtH/aFKPVl8JZknTaxrSmApdzlmlsX2nF 5tZNzqg41rtGKvcQaLTnWUXKZ8tPAoJORRIfzIJoaLEoQHl4c4Fn1Gy2IGjUtPAkUG92 lblA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZMwfY0H1JMAZEimA4blPUE2fv9AswxYK7wR2qRzN4Z3MPuxUUm U49rN8dh+dtGLp+3vAxM5jg+v2ntZNGGc0s1hWeAMQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJNU06rUfoLe4GFuRxSz6VIx+MR8EvB4XqXRm97U54FVZYSbpSxcMM3vOknae5SicB07XP0VNVZNIGeNFuXwi4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8699:: with SMTP id l25mr1608160lji.156.1586260827938; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 05:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Warren Kumari <>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 07:59:51 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Susan Hares <>
Cc: ops-dir <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 12:00:32 -0000

Thank you - this was a very helpful review, and I used it to inform my

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:52 AM Susan Hares via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Reviewer: Susan Hares
> Review result: Ready
> Status:  Ready
> comments:  Excellent write-up
> Detailed Comment:  I have read and re-read this document to find an error in
> the technical text.


> Congratulations to the authors.  This is one of the few
> documents I cannot find any improvement in the base text.

Indeed - thanks to the authors and WG for being so diligent,

> Did you check the text code snippet with a validator?  If not, it is normally
> good form.
> My operational comments on this document are "meta-comments" for the Operations
> AD below
> -------------------
> The security section starts out with the phrase:
>  "This specification does not define the security mechanism to be used
> in the transmission of the dat escrow deposits, since it only
> specifies the  minimum necessary to enable the rebuidling of a
> registry from the deposits wtihotu intervention from the original registry."
> Given this focus, it is difficult to determine if the data deposited is really
> the data that was on the original source.   The language among the
> depositers is couched in "recommended" and "should".
> As a META question, the IESG reviewers should ask is the the "best"
> than can be done due to the on the legal constraints in the countries
> that the data registries live in.  If so, it would be wise to provide
> a second document that provides additional suggestions for
> countries in which additional operational security can be mandated.
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list

I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.