Re: [Rift] AD Review of draft-ietf-rift-rift-12 (Part 2a)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On April 2, 2021 at 8:29:21 AM, Tony Przygienda wrote:


Tony:

> Alvaro, thanks for detailed input. it will be a good topic for today's weekly
> rift review hour. inline.

Please keep in mind that most of my comments are made thinking about
option (b) [*] -- but, so far, yours and Bruno's expectations are
different.  IOW, if I need to get in an (a) mindset then the comments
may be different.  I would really like to hear from others in the WG.

See a couple of things inline.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

[*] From the "What is being standardized in the base spec?" thread.



...
> > MD5 won't pass the Security scrutiny. I just did a quick scan and
> > found the Security Envelope, but no details on what is MTI in terms of
> > algorithms, etc.
>
> OK, I will cut out any reference to any specific algorithm. I just mention
> that the key id is basically also indicating the authentication schema used.

I actually meant it the other way around: there should be
mandatory-to-implement security.  The "limited domain" arguments don't
always work.  We can of course try...




...
> Is there some kind of precedence case where a base protocol spec
> has been held by its applicability draft? Sounds extremely new to me.

All kinds!  If it is not clear what the tradeoffs of the options are
-- that is the reason I keep pointing at rfc5706.

Again, let's settle the "What is being standardized in the base spec?"
discussion first.  I want to make sure that we're all on the same page
and that we agree on exactly what is needed.   This includes making
sure the rest of the IESG are in the loop and don't ask for things
later.

As I said at the top, my comments are made with one set of
expectations -- you're answering with a different set.  I know we had
talked (including the Chairs): we all heard the same words, but we
interpreted them differently.



...
> > > > 1454 2. the neighboring node is running the same MAJOR schema version
> > > > AND
> > ...
> > > > [minor] Are there any requirements related to the minor version?
> > >
> > > the schema versioning does describe that in excruciating details @
> > > beginning of appendix B. I'll fwd reference
> >
> > Sorry, I meant: for this step, does the minor version matter? Or is
> > it ok if just the major version is the same?
>
> I quote the spec:
>
> "
> 2. the neighboring node is running the same MAJOR schema version AND
>
> "
> The spec does explicitly NOT say anything about minor and this is intended
> exactly like this.

Great!  I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask. ;-)