Re: [sidr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-02

BCP seems like a fine answer here, I'm not remembering why we would have
swapped to ST from BCP.

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:12 AM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

> [ + Sandy, Alvaro ]
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>
>> that use of a MUST is commendable but its not exactly an interoperability
>> issue
>>
>> to me “must” works in this case (and the other cases in this document)
>>
>> but, that said, 2119 has been misused for kinda a long time so its not a
>> new sin
>>
>>
> This document has a long history -- it was originally a product of the
> SIDR Working Group (as draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying), and only moved over to
> SIDROPS recently, when SIDR closed down (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidr/about/)
>
> The document was originally a BCP (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying/09/) but was
> changed to Standards Track in -10 (
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-10.txt)
>
>
> I have gone back through the agenda and minutes for IETF 92 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-92-sidr/) IETF 93 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-93-sidr/) and IETF 94 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-94-sidr/)
> I also went back and watched the video recordings from IETF 94:
> https://youtu.be/fElkBi4UMEA?t=2397 and wasn't able to find any
> discussion of why the change was made, but I *was* able to find some
> changes made between -09 and -10 which seem to be the outcome of those
> discussions.
>
> Authors / SIDROPS [0] & SIDR / chairs -  can y'all remember why the track
> change was made?
>
> Whatever the case, the IETF LC was done as Standards Track (a higher
> level), and so it could always be "downgraded" to BCP / informational
> during IESG Eval.
> I personally think it "feels" like BCP, but I don't have full history /
> inherited the document and don't want to be arbitrarily making changes.
>
>
> W
> [0]: SIDROPS and SIDR participant overlap is almost 100%.
>
>
>
>
>> Scott
>>
>> > On Dec 26, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > mornin’ scott,
>> >
>> >> it is hard to see why it should be standards track or why it should
>> >> be using RFC 2119 type terminology.
>> >
>> > these are two separate issues.
>> >
>> > alvaro and the chairs can adjudicate what flavor of ice cream it should
>> > be.  it my memory says it was a wg decision.  i really do not care.
>> >
>> > as to 2119 language, i kinda feel it should remain.  it is used
>> > sparingly. but is crucial when used.  e.g.
>> >
>> >      all private keys MUST be protected when at rest in a secure
>> >      fashion.
>> >
>> > i suspect we would want to keep that strongly prescriptive; but it is
>> > not a hill on which i am interested in dying.
>> >
>> > randy
>>
>>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
> in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
> pants.
>    ---maf
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>