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

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
>
>