Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>]

Ines - sounds good to me.

Robert

On 28 July 2015 at 13:00, Ines Robles <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> First two comments from ballotage [4] from v11:
>
> - 4.1.8: "MUST be present" is ambiguous - do you mean
> it must be used? I think you do.
>
> Addressed: changed to " security MUST be used on all nodes"
>
> - 4.1.8: "MUST be distributed or established in a
> secure fashion" isn't really a protocol requirement.
> Do you really just mean "see 4.1.8.1" ?
>
>
> In [1] states "Yes. It was meant more as an introductory statement but is
> redundant really".
>
> For this sentence more clarification was added in 12:
>
> "A symmetric key is used to secure a RPL message using either RPL
> message security or link-layer security.  The symmetric key MUST be
> distributed or established in a secure fashion.  There may be more
> than one symmetric key in use by any node at any one time.  The same
> symmetric key MUST NOT be used for both RPL message security and
> link-layer security between two peer nodes."
>
> In [2] is suggested to remove the sentence, so it could be done by the RFC
> Editor. Do you agree with that?
>
>
> The other comments  (v10) from ballotage are addressed as states in [3]
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg09368.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg09388.html
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg09376.html
> [4]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building/ballot/
>
> I believe that the document is ready to go forward.
>
> Thank you very much for your hard work on this,
>
> Ines
>
> 2015-07-28 12:58 GMT+03:00 Robert Cragie <[e-mail]>:
>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> Understood - thanks for the clarification. As mentioned, we did go
>> through the comments and respond and make changes so will be happy to show
>> these to the chairs/AD if required.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On 28 July 2015 at 10:50, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hiya,
>>>
>>> On 28/07/15 09:18, Robert Cragie wrote:
>>> > Hi Stephen,
>>> >
>>> > Please see inline for specific responses.
>>> >
>>> > Regarding the old comments: We have tried to respond to these issues in
>>> > previous follow up e-mails and modify the document in accordance with
>>> the
>>> > responses. Repeating these old comments suggests that neither those
>>> > responses nor the updated text have been read yet. Please can you read
>>> the
>>> > responses and updated text before simply repeating these comments?
>>> > Otherwise I can't see how we can make any progress on this.
>>>
>>> Sorry, we're talking past one another. The old comments are present in
>>> the tracker and get attached to the email unless I go through them and
>>> delete them manually. And since they are not blocking I don't spend
>>> much time tracking if they have/haven't been addressed. And mostly I
>>> forget once sufficient time has elapsed;-) In other words, it's up to
>>> you and your AD if you want to consider them or not, I don't mind.
>>>
>>> So you can make progress on this in various ways. One is to just ignore
>>> the comments. Another is to say "yeah, we know it's not blocking but
>>> we'd actually like to chat about <this> comment." Your chairs/AD may
>>> have more ideas.
>>>
>>> But the main thing is that a "No Objection" ballot is just that, I
>>> don't object to this moving ahead.
>>>
>>> So I'd say if there are any of the comments where you think it is
>>> interesting to continue to chat, please just mail me about that but
>>> there is no need to address each one in blow-by-blow fashion. If
>>> you and your AD think there's no need for more chat, then we're done
>>> already.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps,
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Robert
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 25 July 2015 at 15:08, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> >> draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: No Objection
>>> >>
>>> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>>> this
>>> >> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Please refer to
>>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building/
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> COMMENT:
>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for the discussion about security. I didn't check
>>> >> if the comments below were handled in -12, happy to
>>> >> chat about that if you want.
>>> >>
>>> >> First two comments are about text that's new in -11:
>>> >>
>>> >> - 4.1.8: "MUST be present" is ambiguous - do you mean
>>> >> it must be used? I think you do.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > <RCC>This has been changed to "MUST be used on all nodes" in -12</RCC>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> - 4.1.8: "MUST be distributed or established in a
>>> >> secure fashion" isn't really a protocol requirement.
>>> >> Do you really just mean "see 4.1.8.1" ?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > <RCC>As mentioned before, this is just introductory. I suggest
>>> removing the
>>> > sentence to close the comment.</RCC>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>
>>
>