Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79C83A693A; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.171
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.428, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8NVL2AH1UKee; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D52F3A6BB5; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so9800692iwn.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0y9nxu+mWnJX+0iN8N7oOpykxD6YFl3pUZ2rFk9UP7k=; b=f3hPEmkS68CE0/AVsAxxVnNVpFwez3mTE+T5amosNdza588b5aKR9Qqy1tue5GBWY3 3AsRANHJHhPBNZ2uxsDc5dRydxkdEwhure+bT/WtWKuktg6qHRV8e0HsGrCnIGhS8trA 88JoP5dduUhdVIobFSzOEapOMBy+ESaD8B9i8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=cf6+HIAUXggH1fXbrKSGgUr3MxbMmPVYGf361NQYydU2kpao5EYuMS36FL6U41OmTI r/KnvTPXjutAkxc2Hg/P0uslbQA1D3yhy6zmooqdDQXFZmY6/jwUaG+A3sZlAMSSgQTc AR9oG6iodk9REivLpdI3WdziPOKgGQuyiSqZg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.152.78 with SMTP id f14mr8716435ibw.60.1287076798506; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.207.15 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4CAAD4B0.2080807@gmail.com>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585015BCA1D@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <4CAAD4B0.2080807@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:19:57 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimcGR6nBUqhpmMW-TmE1i58Ts6psSmSg+KnXhmG@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <gcamaril@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "ben@estacado.net" <ben@estacado.net>, "draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:21:04 -0000

I have reviewed the updated draft, and I believe it to be much clearer in intent
and in which modifications to the underlying matching semantics are present.
If it were to progress in its current form, I would not have any
technical objections.
While it is still somewhat confusing to have a URI comparison method defined
but not used, it is at least clear what the method is and what is used instead
in this.

On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
tipped over the "diff" line somewhere.  That is, as a set of edits it is now
sufficiently complex that it would almost certainly be better to apply
the edits and re-spin the whole document rather than provide a set of
textual diffs in the current format.  If the ADs and WG chairs feel that there
is no energy to tackle such a major editorial change, however, I certainly
understand.  It is possible to build up the correct state with the two
documents;
it is just more difficult.

regards,

Ted Hardie