Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft?

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 12 April 2012 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFE221F86CB; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3u7+d4v2FKE; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.scss.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46D721F8693; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167CD17147C; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:21:19 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1334247678; bh=FBQq/f0hLMoR+w z0P70QEPx86p9L6yTeL6avCTH0G4A=; b=6G4yulfDuvHq1P7hIbWLJHv1ePyLvR H5ItJe0wiGyNwWdqJvngIQ80fQs5PwKZUk8eu53aj9EmJP0vLCycSWFcj1/Rami6 +uXph88JYtajtEqeDBjyo2FK7hjUI/kkZ394ZVRL7t28mk1aSnpYU78+pO2cEZnc 7kgerUiVHtN7ASouQSGh2h/Kxm8vKh+1sjSzxFqN7a88skYjbbUxo3jKYKgFibPi qOmPIwnqJOU/5s6rS5KZxXoeJ81sRTGK6C0FlMzqj/DYaWhTefjek4sR01Lv7Hv9 sRyVmMOUwZATfY1FvFyYUW6khUtnSJAM6ie7UVEm42scoawZvVNV7oAw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id C-cAxKiPI1WX; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:21:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.3] (unknown [86.45.63.74]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53FA7171474; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:21:12 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4F8700F8.4060709@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:21:12 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>
References: <20120406144445.4188.3196.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <201204061553.q36FrBRV007699@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <07e001cd14e0$41b408c0$c51c1a40$@olddog.co.uk> <201204080018.q380I1VK007743@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <099701cd15b1$fc18c990$f44a5cb0$@olddog.co.uk> <201204091344.q39Di1rK002725@alpd052.aldc.att.com> <0bea01cd168a$7ed8ae80$7c8a0b80$@juniper.net> <4F8578DE.1020808@cisco.com>, <4F85C96C.4050705@mti-systems.com> <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6F2DD0@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
In-Reply-To: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60F6F2DD0@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Al Morton' <acmorton@att.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "afarrel@juniper.net" <afarrel@juniper.net>, 'Samuel Weiler' <weiler@watson.org>, "ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Dan Frost' <danfrost@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft?
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:21:21 -0000

Thanks Sandy,

I've cleared.

S

On 04/12/2012 05:19 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
> Dan Frost and I brought up some of the same comments, wrt the active or passive use of the metric and the suggestion of cryptographic hashes to solve security considerations.
>
> The latest revision satisfies me.
>
> There's one question I'm not adequate to address, and I leave it to the authors and ADs to address:
>
>     Although this metric MAY be applicable in
>     passive measurement as well, discussion of additional considerations
>     for the passive scenario are beyond the normative scope of this memo.
>
> Does that "MAY" mean "optional" in the 2119 sense, or "might"/"could" in normal English usage sense?
>
> It sounds like this is saying "there are considerations if this metric is used in a passive scenario, which we aren't going to discuss, but even so you have the option to use this".
>
> I don't know what the "additional considerations" would be.  If they are considerations that a measurement implementer should heed, that's not much of a worry.  If they are considerations that impact others, that's more of a worry.  (Section 9.2's discussion of keeping info confidential (for passive measurements) is an example of considerations that impact others.)
>
> So I'll leave it to those who know whether that "MAY" is OK or not.
>
> --Sandy
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Wesley Eddy [wes@mti-systems.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:11 PM
> To: Benoit Claise
> Cc: afarrel@juniper.net; 'Al Morton'; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Samuel Weiler'; 'The IESG'; ippm-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss@tools.ietf.org; 'Dan Frost'; Murphy, Sandra; secdir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03:     (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft?
>
> On 4/11/2012 8:28 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> Al, Wes
>>
>> I want to review this draft before the IESG telechat tomorrow.
>> However, it's getting difficult to keep track of the all the changes
>> between
>>      - the posted version 3
>>      - the diff-03-04 you sent
>>      - the extra proposal.
>>
>> What is the best way to proceed?
>>      - Al, have you kept a temp version with all the changes?
>>      - Are we shooting for "revised-ID" at the telechat? I could start my
>> review from there
>>      - Do we want to have a version 4 posted now?
>>
>> What is the best way to proceed?
>
>
> I noticed Al sent a copy with updates that have been suggested
> so far.
>
> Please feel free to hit the "Defer" button if you don't feel
> there's adequate time to review this one; it looks like a busy
> telechat agenda this week!
>
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
>