IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 15 July 2021 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 256843A1315; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9ymtn7-adRw4; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (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 3100C3A130F; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id c20so2177425uar.12; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cwViMiUAqgGHI0mtEkLlg2yXDSLufzN0MEqhlBythok=; b=uL9VV7c3vaWVOcTH2UgN4RnDoT4YSrKluQhX7ZRaRHKAL9vKV16lKVcfQWtZxzSx/w qYKZ6F6lg9dyRuK3FBQa3IgJ07IGt2PuMXKCs2CMTVBrkmqHKQi/FM5aV3Y3lw3dVm7Z FRTCNlesXlLjT34w1QrhRkm1D/FgHUuBSfNNv5TGIifkO3rITkZtgTcShm8CoGbfJ1ZJ sImtnGXmBR2+ivObssafxVjlZM++kBPx5kGgfyDKca9p3y++LflBs1scxmUYSQToYuPH ZvzB1IGV81jKO9Qo6chZMg5zI32AnuZ8J69pfc0yLGrGwhOYa/5S4Do8U7OkF35c2O6R dmog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cwViMiUAqgGHI0mtEkLlg2yXDSLufzN0MEqhlBythok=; b=gMrfC4k9LiT7E/HXO3d0bliga9CYLwSkdxfQ4GcH4zqJ1dj4BBbpHayFxhHVXMcUYq kyywNB4LeL3irpeGMBe10w35r+ozNrTT0UHOtzOY323f6AbwfEUr5qjxJVQdgDAqMejg 5Fkxypn9+HWDdFIwiifZHITOfXGahztEtEM76mKMrLro+rd/HL7rA2bLUUh9TVkL45dz tp5xipvDfpWKILhSXYSgqcFUMtd9nXGoiFs1F5YDPuHFuo6mMNKKBJY5k2oyaHVgYNW4 PduJ69D6nQyWO0tRrE1hLvAkxexH5KgP+kVdBUt+kK4fqutk/lE1MozLp5gLAjSByWpw j8Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533OVngKzorVXxHI+v8Uh3f5qgF/7HD+DPRY+EY0Jahok8PLQChz VpjgJJ5RuXTL+eUwK06tQoauqYtFA8OajGMsHK4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLPZLprdrhY4RleEFMNSThSq2KnwGhZ58vrA96FvplvrqCfK0vlqzODeTLfvv3Hx4YobHiu1nO6faA9uGtaxQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:7e94:: with SMTP id j20mr7441939uax.87.1626359568874; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162611498183.7775.3562397379733537345@ietfa.amsl.com> <f5961690-4496-7f85-74ca-f3705d5a1c2e@joelhalpern.com> <CAMMESszF+jc7WKkAwmzAFs0A7bsDqXJKA3p5+cyexdU3fvNnDQ@mail.gmail.com> <1a5ae768-bf12-6d94-819c-7923e1f816ee@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <1a5ae768-bf12-6d94-819c-7923e1f816ee@joelhalpern.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 07:32:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbb4L5LrtMNokzkWTag+oZTs6hFbBtbfCnthO-m_cpfiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity@ietf.org, Service Function Chaining IETF list <sfc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000061405705c72a5848"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sfc/TMjl_3xLMEskbnZF7T7Gj1dX9cs>
Subject: Re: [sfc] Alvaro Retana'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: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:33:00 -0000

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:38 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
wrote:

> 2) The discussion happened when 8300 was being approved.  We agreed with
> the IESG that we would not define a mandatory-to-implement NSH security
> mechanism, but that we would add an optional NSH security mechanism.
> Which this draft does.
>

I think on reading the document, I didn't find it clear that this was an
optional thing or an extension.  It read to me a lot more like it was
filling an important gap left by RFC 8300, which to me leans much more
firmly in the direction that it's appropriate to call it an update.

-MSK

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email