Re: [Sidrops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: (with COMMENT)
Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> Thu, 30 November 2017 01:28 UTC
Return-Path: <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09134127978; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:28:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 SXvPRckWiyO7; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:28:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (relay.ops-netman.net [192.110.255.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F1A0127136; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:28:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (mailserver.ops-netman.net [199.168.90.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA493FF19; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 01:28:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from morrowc-glaptop2.ops-netman.net (pool-108-56-140-241.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.56.140.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6110D558F7E3; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 01:28:27 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.ops-netman.net; dkim=none reason="no signature"; dkim-adsp=fail (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:28:26 -0500
Message-ID: <yj9oindsblmt.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net>
From: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover@ietf.org, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <151199837926.4902.900040686839421737.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <151199837926.4902.900040686839421737.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/D-Yd4jtbw7cjq3CeUzMuuL8aEhw>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 01:28:32 -0000
Hey ben! thanks for reading :) and reviewing... a bit more below. On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:32:59 -0500, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: No Objection > > 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Did the working group consider making this a BCP? It describes operational > practices, not protocol. > I don't believe the WG considered BCP, no... This is an ops-group so we don't normally do 'protocol' changes. I agree that this sounds more like a 'bcp' ... We can ask the authors their thoughts though I can't imagine there's much difference for them between PS and BCP, right? Author-folken? > -1: The draft contains a number of instances of "must" and "should" in lower > case. If those are correct, please consider using the boilerplate from 8174.
- Re: [Sidrops] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draf… Chris Morrow