IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sfc] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Tue, 13 July 2021 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sfc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3AC3A09C0; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
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 87czC_xCVWKj; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 0A9FB3A09B5; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 01:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [85.131.57.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B6B660034E; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:29:12 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1626164952; bh=WwL+lbPGbidvQgzQyqhZG/cDwDmB6HbHYBKsxBd1DrQ=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=nM+796vyIVogdjCzG7NGsRvlmUfx4/fWJ3X8+eHyd7IndVNuaJ8hOX8DpetqipFHf zHLaBlce+Fpt3C8XMBjwoqxXj0pJFeYBSgA+iPB5zareqvo71Wh1dWHSeGTUvhJFpT fVfEdhr4/yUo/vFaMfkHIuP4bomwvGUtMCyrrZEI=
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <13F1FACA-057F-440C-821D-80E69E953754@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D61150D2-E625-44CF-B505-BEBCDBC8EE2C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:29:11 +0300
In-Reply-To: <5351_1626116550_60EC91C6_5351_270_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353BD911@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "gregimirsky@gmail.com" <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity@ietf.org>, "sfc-chairs@ietf.org" <sfc-chairs@ietf.org>, "sfc@ietf.org" <sfc@ietf.org>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <162610118774.23532.4225033232156129750@ietfa.amsl.com> <5351_1626116550_60EC91C6_5351_270_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353BD911@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-MailScanner-ID: 1B6B660034E.A6543
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/A3iOreVGtV4weDvlcCsG02FlvCE>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sfc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Service Chaining <sfc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sfc/>
List-Post: <mailto:sfc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc>, <mailto:sfc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:29:28 -0000

Hi,

>> Given that, I am surprised this document doesn't formally update
>> RFC8300?
> 
> [Med] Alvaro raised a similar comment. Not reiterating the same answer here.

OK, I will monitor that discussion thread.

>> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity:
>> * Term "master"; alternatives might be "active", "central",
>> "initiator",
> 
> [Med] Not sure what is problematic in saying "... master their complexity .."

Well, it's a term that some find problematic. Also, wouldn't "control their complexity" be more precise?

Thanks,
Lars

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email