IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sacm] Comments on draft-ietf-sacm-ecp

Adam Montville <adam.w.montville@gmail.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <adam.w.montville@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sacm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F8D12DA01; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 7VwpFylxAw5B; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (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 191CF12D9FE; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id z23so22715561qti.5; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 07:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=T+lv3Snf5HeN7/P3jo26qSGEgUGaz7S+Cd2z2FbxdVw=; b=qTALRse0915hf/S/2lhASWQZjOa6M9lxovFWIvI7xTxzIGaae6fkN0lnEvmog6HTSk cFVwVe6kgkDpHvfXbVP5D60Zp2JFvEWCWrUV8Povs1f/Y8ygZ43n6NgUjK6J9acZtzXh 3KAp+J8lTj7Tep0WrqDAIGumkD0TOuBviFtoOwyLJt9/CXPra2W2Xy+N0hZmicbBmCmc SaFgzkgIf+BfdZIs+yb8tRC9OWK1hlK5e5CKqX7kTeP2gpOYJ7Rt+wiMbvTfIzt6plPI Aqn0UoaeAhMOniGiKCiDCp2WrsyJy+eWeDOvSxmQpcdbhW3j3nOoHL1ArjeybzicNFac sAKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=T+lv3Snf5HeN7/P3jo26qSGEgUGaz7S+Cd2z2FbxdVw=; b=E3X610dGUHy/Rtb2zszH/pGPdPfX38sQUpKPTswOBhQGBeJfFNBFOi+LwN9TeEf0NL Uy9sz5Qecq6MZf/IDncoy0prwIaEbpB2c7GBaYCNTqx1p8wpPMlYg0P8EjZkqWtAzpyX +17HrBmAyCkfxV16eG9g/5CFtDQP3CBOZPqM1JAPZjDV717Ssv0Jd++a8f/A6kdKwI3b xBiu58iRESBhlmgZJ9FUrzNybxwCfdreJkVsaoK0cAeXBXTXEDYiDiDYaxvRK6xqMU3R Rkms0WnujOzfzjwZwTc5uI2E5HUAMdj0djxuZv7otoHRnLKh5JK5jhkoj9cPe6IcGgH7 QX7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDlmyPL/XOYi0vTkPJUqfGEOeOs5+eiPqEyQrpiB01M28CQ4EhK Wy32uRygS82HF7/vZ3OD1uA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48acKD/w0g1JJ9e/rEHcNEGwZXr0wO4WEJrokWuxAd54PAAlQrUBMWiZU/omHzWCjGTFu9fNg==
X-Received: by 10.200.25.20 with SMTP id t20mr27455398qtj.187.1522853922062; Wed, 04 Apr 2018 07:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from macbook-3.lan (99-64-100-131.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net. [99.64.100.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q2sm4481877qtf.54.2018.04.04.07.58.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Apr 2018 07:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Adam Montville <adam.w.montville@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <AB5E0CED-1E55-4E90-8DB3-0B6E1801C442@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_49B4BCA3-2ABB-4527-B39B-15F2692ED224"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 09:58:39 -0500
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR0901MB2197CC362C2CAC788F806367A5A40@DM5PR0901MB2197.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-sacm-ecp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sacm-ecp@ietf.org>, "<sacm@ietf.org>" <sacm@ietf.org>
To: "Haynes Jr., Dan" <dhaynes@mitre.org>
References: <A9A78B93-981C-4857-AC35-CD38055DA55B@gmail.com> <DM5PR0901MB219737E3075D0C2C84E916D3A5A50@DM5PR0901MB2197.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <AAC84E16-2518-45C7-9F5A-6092712526D6@gmail.com> <DM5PR0901MB2197CC362C2CAC788F806367A5A40@DM5PR0901MB2197.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sacm/P43akN3cfTi2JmbmycTKarN5Ig8>
Subject: Re: [sacm] Comments on draft-ietf-sacm-ecp
X-BeenThere: sacm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SACM WG mail list <sacm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sacm/>
List-Post: <mailto:sacm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm>, <mailto:sacm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 14:58:46 -0000


> On Apr 4, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Haynes Jr., Dan <dhaynes@mitre.org> wrote:
> 
> I would like to see how the authors feel ECP maps to RFC8248 (similar to the attempt we made in the mandm draft [2])
> [danny] It doesn’t directly map to RFC8248, but, it talks about how ECP aligns with SACM (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haynes-sacm-ecp-recommendations-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haynes-sacm-ecp-recommendations-00>). Does this help?
>  
> Am I the only one that finds this to be odd? I would like to think that, because ECP is essentially proposing at least a part of our intended architecture, some of the requirements would apply...
> 
> [danny] Hmmm, maybe my comment didn’t come out right. I was just saying that draft-haynes-sacm-ecp-recommendations didn’t directly map ECP to requirements. Not that ECP, as a solution, didn’t map to SACM requirements.

Ah, ok. Then my original comment would really be a suggestion to make the link as explicit as possible by including that mapping.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email