Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Wed, 29 June 2016 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.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 E7C3E12B048 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 nuseuIWdHBMp for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 665A612D134 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1096; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467222136; x=1468431736; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=mfU8HzSOE/0373mwR+qJIiTEd6lmt4Q3v60pCiyfOVY=; b=bBH+eYqR3oZD8jiYYfHR5UHNFPirL3zJFyVErfRrBwVxoaFWOX4frH8L 5JWNvb4O+maFOrsLoj8xMq5PFuiXl93i2JazGMIHXlnjBuquBIgh2GRvg QcOnpjKSFjhCvK8mnuxgYQfZHNjcpvMpiG7ZZXQRFt4TtNu3r/3oLxj3m 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AXAgDEB3RX/49dJa1agz6BUwa5Q4F7h?= =?us-ascii?q?hgCgTI4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RNAQEEOk8CAQg2EDIlAgQBEogwxBcBAQEBAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAR+GKIRNihsBBIgYiziFNQGOPY8lkAIBHjaDcG6IP38BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,547,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="118260693"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Jun 2016 17:42:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5THgFSd014924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:42:15 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:42:15 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:42:15 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHRnPRan3y40yRdEkS30+qNsvqUUp/L3N6AgDVVFoA=
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:42:14 +0000
Message-ID: <D399808E.1319F5%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <D321EEDD.11B911%aretana@cisco.com> <20160427015828.9591B3EEED13@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> <D36A105A.1277CC%aretana@cisco.com> <57471323.6050704@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <57471323.6050704@bbn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <09B544570B086A41BFF38C98CB29F633@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/i3YzgTQKzSNbKpVK7-IX_WamPiU>
Subject: Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-07
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, 29 Jun 2016 17:42:18 -0000

On 5/26/16, 11:15 AM, "sidr on behalf of Stephen Kent"
<sidr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of kent@bbn.com>; wrote:

[Sorry for the delay...]

>
>> ...
>>> It means that most of the code one needs to deal with version one is
>>> the same as the code one needs to deal with version zero.  Feel free
>>> to suggest better text.
>> When I think about protocol compatibility I think about on-the-wire
>> behavior and packets, not about the implementation internals.
>
>I'm not sure what the phrase "on-the-wire behavior" means. Certainly
>it is not enough to agree on data formats, i.e., the format of data on
>the wire.
>There also must be consistent behavior by each end of a
>connection/session/ ...
>(in terms of externally-visible processing) of the agreed upon data
>format.
>Otherwise,  the behavior of "compatible" implementations may vary
>significantly,
>and  users will not see the versions as "compatible."
>
>I think your latter comments match my sense of "compatibility",
>but I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.

Yes, I think we are.

Alvaro.