Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 04 January 2017 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE6F12966C; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:42:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IL8fAzxCJFRL; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 5DD7F129663; Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v04GfpTi059508 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 10:41:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 10:41:51 -0600
Message-ID: <41B2F724-8213-469E-836D-46650503B403@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <F170405A-7984-4A15-B2E7-99E2BE0682C4@cisco.com>
References: <148348795694.28027.8646303758093237302.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <m2d1g3mvo2.wl-randy@psg.com> <F170405A-7984-4A15-B2E7-99E2BE0682C4@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/YYnXaqB81yydgjavfEoK0jmlZyw>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 16:42:01 -0000

On 4 Jan 2017, at 6:49, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> On 1/3/17, 9:00 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> | | -12.2: [I-D.ietf.sider.bgpsec.overview] is mentioned in section 2 
> as
>
> | | needed to understand this document. That suggests it should be a
>
> | | normative reference.
>
> |
>
> | ennie meenie.  i think some other reviewer had me push refs around.  
> i
>
> | don't have a dog in this fight.  my personal opinion would be that
>
> | overview is informative and the protocol spec itself is normative.
>
>
>
> I agree.  In fact, it was me who asked to move 
> I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview to Informative as the reference to the 
> spec (draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol) is the Normative one.
>
>
>
> In this case, we don’t want to make I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview a 
> Normative reference because it is an Informational document and would 
> result in a downref (resulting in more process, and that document is 
> not ready yet).
>
>

The issue I saw is that section 2 says readers are expected to 
understand bgpsec, and cites the overview for that purpose. Perhaps it 
should cite the protocol doc for the "expected to understand" part, and 
them mention separately that the overview provides, well, an overview?

Ben.