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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 28 July 2015 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 150BB1A8839; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ttiP6UPR-Eni; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F7BB1A883C; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C381DBE38; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:50:34 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HqYmSNK5NrVm; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:50:34 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8ED0DBE35; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:50:34 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1438077034; bh=mXjqDYrGFTpHtlA1aMn7Ek1okBYrk7IfXp3Mu/NC9G4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=y7enSp1ATJlfQpXFacnjhyiWyfy3rmMo/nQRZsufPEuLuCBDH3Us9qpUFUfO8q7QF eRqC7jpMzNf5bKxz5Evl40N4CJLDplGFv9aHkGv7rmvHBsoeiNPUUbQG0dxyDfj2cD t9PeFQxOsiKeZVbNjqxoUCbg00m82aVu5BqJw+G0=
Message-ID: <55B7506A.9040004@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:50:34 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
References: <20150725140840.20611.18415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADrU+dK44Gze4k5LKDK-_8HT2n-_=WMOMczk_XyPYOYGybyq2A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADrU+dK44Gze4k5LKDK-_8HT2n-_=WMOMczk_XyPYOYGybyq2A@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/uDbNCzjuwDJeiPTIJnZPqSED2vs>
Cc: roll-chairs@ietf.org, "roll@ietf.org WG" <roll@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.ad@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.shepherd@ietf.org, Yvonne-Anne Pignolet <yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@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: 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 09:50:40 -0000

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>
>