Re: [sfc] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

The whole point of the earlier discussion is that this is an optional 
extension.  The fact that if you do it, it is mandatory to do it as 
described does not make this mandatory for implementations of 8300. 
None of the words in this document have that effect.

if the IESG wants to retroactively change 8300, that may be one of the 
few things that could actually cause the working group to engage, as 
folks were strongly against mandating the support for this.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/15/2021 2:13 AM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity-06: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-integrity/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Enough other Area Directors have said, and I agree, that this should officially
> update RFC 8300, so I'd like to have the discussion.  In particular, given that
> this was identified as a gap in RFC 8300, and since I don't see any explicit
> statement that this is meant to be an optional extension, shouldn't it be an
> update?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Only nits to add, given the thorough treatment already given by others:
> 
> Section 4.1.2: "The first level of assurance where all NSH data ..." -- add
> "is" before "where"?  And the same issue in the next paragraph.
> 
> Section 5.2: s/Coves/Covers/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sfc mailing list
> sfc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc
> 