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

Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <robert.cragie@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D371A9085; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=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 PYebsTc7MAJr; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com (mail-lb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]) (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 114F81A9044; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbyj8 with SMTP id yj8so75118383lbb.0; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=j3VWQdhcHrHOuBoA7y881s1WBVGKme4OGLrH/EmYytI=; b=bLHQz2WpRNk5/AXqp+lzyLo6VW/YmlLTE3zBbH4YQePj/V7NncvI9gpp3aNGZu0c+k YHVy8HPTsWMqggLCKv3A4DbL4Ia6MIks62Lw2Slhzg3SswoqUDPIlgHP8GlvZ2SFgoyn gP6C5W76lqM46ZoGR7F5lTd8juVnOZIsqZIg38GAS5eq1mh+6hgIlHgOpn2Cg5JGqhDI 2cl2HTJRfDqvzUZQVSeDweFKi6JgPnzhrmMS550bGMwVYQYb9tb/nYCKznpUcRnTyL9o cWvCxk01y0E/ajujiAVN/yu8O53/baHzpTOYkowpZxY4UFu0lMDGSPKGN8PT8dr+s+8t HvMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.36.102 with SMTP id p6mr32885999laj.19.1438091424491; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com
Received: by 10.25.31.75 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 06:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUeVHQgXmsizWK-X5QvXPxqmyz7SJmJhX3bx3cztph53Yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150725140840.20611.18415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADrU+dK44Gze4k5LKDK-_8HT2n-_=WMOMczk_XyPYOYGybyq2A@mail.gmail.com> <55B7506A.9040004@cs.tcd.ie> <CADrU+dJNONsyJCoqKcJm7yx=y+O+T1aihbZg8GZ9zE32J=tw6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+sJUeVHQgXmsizWK-X5QvXPxqmyz7SJmJhX3bx3cztph53Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:50:24 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: VyPK0TaF7ZEUh4VlPiV9PDvDKlQ
Message-ID: <CADrU+d+dtfuQ6iSZH+Ry_0uXzorFWOyJ4Ao-VNtHvZZbKNCZjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b7a482f371051befc013
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/RL_2Gk3MdHBZccIZYWRJcEaO_1s>
Cc: roll-chairs@ietf.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.ad@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@ietf.org, Yvonne-Anne Pignolet <yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:29 -0000

Ines - sounds good to me.

Robert

On 28 July 2015 at 13:00, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>;
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 <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>;:
>
>> 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 <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;
>> 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 <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;
>>> 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
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>
>>
>