Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-05

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 21 May 2014 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A201A0742; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 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, 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 PaJGuYcGW-7y; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B83D1A06AC; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:04:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f51so3234746qge.40 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=GuFH6TPDIgxTJofVxQ8eaG0RWKYPYZ9oMSeob1ew0nw=; b=c3G41TdLyVRSrtP/7dtaNpAMqBj9l8DOHQElz10Lw3/DW3NR1zJG8729fC9GPYtYw/ ApLqxwPWFXRiCrUN6LdLBJc9jhH+Uy30rTvUR8tCR5JGf50XE2ybtLz6dJw9Q0hYZeNC uRYmCDk3BywJ5lUl7V1vLMpg2tD+tYUMlEyxnmVxOfNLgKyJcUsa9t/gQqC2xNT46z8u o6VQUZBFLsWy63KXNNgVEQOSbQbi9u7FDd4zZ8euZs+5/f11VAS5wznyt/D4KRXJYNdX 4WTjC/Vbf7+9PnCRppJKEYEaYNIropEc7iQXRW6z3fFz0tF3hdVl/sA1n635k+l84gG+ owng==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.35.209 with SMTP id q17mr68782291qad.9.1400681075311; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.99.1 with HTTP; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E60BBDE@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <53761B24.1060501@gmail.com> <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E60982F@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <537A694C.60101@gmail.com> <537BC7B6.5040406@cs.tcd.ie> <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E60B609@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <537C5BCE.4010801@cs.tcd.ie> <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E60B6A8@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com> <537C7EDB.9050000@cs.tcd.ie> <CAG1kdogiEJp=jy5D+tvXnAZ2XD0Xe1=kB-do_=h4PU1V9j7KKQ@mail.gmail.com> <537C86D6.1030703@pi.nu> <CALaySJJL34JC23LzYLywKMfui+JErfUzG_uKVg14GLoAy6aAzw@mail.gmail.com> <20211F91F544D247976D84C5D778A4C32E60BBDE@SG70YWXCHMBA05.zap.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:04:35 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5P4Zm8M1uyW9R1X9H_IpZDnFunc
Message-ID: <CALaySJL09RMqTy3tCgYkM+G2hy7Ye9_uRQHhRAb9CxwF0puz5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/2DQl8uu1YO7moSMDXp0SUzN467M
Cc: IETF Security Directorate <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Manav Bhatia <manavbhatia@gmail.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-hello-crypto-auth-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:04:46 -0000

>> It seems to me that if Manav should write something up and pass it by
>> Stephen, you could have something that's pretty much ready by the time
>> Manav posts it as -00.  Post to a few appropriate lists for comments,
>> post a -01, maybe a -02, then last call it.  That can't be more than a
>> few weeks.  Then we have a four-week last call, another week in IESG
>
> This isnt correct. One we don't know the correct home for such a
> draft. Even if we do find a home (which am sure is possible) its going
> to be a very contentious debate on whether HMAC needs Apad or not.
> Till date, I have not heard of a very convincing reason. People would
> like to know the reason of why we want this. If we don't have a very
> convincing reason then it's a long drawn battle which aint finishin'
> in a few weeks time! :-)

Ack.
But, then, why is it better to stick Apad in piecemeal, document by
document, and have the argument all over again every time?

Barry