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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 21 May 2014 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 9C8AC1A086E; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 2Q7wb6WouR2a; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CCF21A0886; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (unknown [112.208.14.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85FD31802AFE; Wed, 21 May 2014 17:50:05 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <537CCB2A.1060603@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 17:50:02 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <manav.bhatia@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> <CALaySJL09RMqTy3tCgYkM+G2hy7Ye9_uRQHhRAb9CxwF0puz5A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJL09RMqTy3tCgYkM+G2hy7Ye9_uRQHhRAb9CxwF0puz5A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/9-7gsggPie13I5jWgTX0IXdrycI
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>
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 15:50:13 -0000

Bary,

On 2014-05-21 16:04, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> 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

Are you requesting that we are revising the document that already have
been approved using the "piecemeal" approach? If you are not why can't
we wrp up the last one and move ahead?

/Loa
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64