IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] Making ASPA AFI-Agnostic - coordination (Was: WGLC = draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification - ENDS 03/22/2023 (Mar 22 2023))

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 07 June 2023 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 04BB4C14CEF9; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 08:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cUOliz8fKflz; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70364C14F74E; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 08:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B51163132; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 11:06:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [96.241.2.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1510416361C; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 11:06:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <62C121A4-DD89-477A-98EC-4356420F4888@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A21E3A0A-8D4A-480A-8B76-DEB02DC51373"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 11:06:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <BLAPR09MB63226569F3349669ABBEA60D9853A@BLAPR09MB6322.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis@ietf.org>
To: "Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <oliver.borchert@nist.gov>
References: <88D8A314-0D17-4EA7-9E33-424021AF0FFF@vigilsec.com> <SA1PR09MB814232A57F80E8B92637ABF684639@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <SA1PR09MB8142A3F0D8E30F4F154863A084639@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <SA1PR09MB81427668A874A3EEFDE61DAE846A9@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <20230428100855.3450881e@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <SA1PR09MB8142DA858A2039F2ED7DAD2B846E9@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <20230502124540.6bc662ba@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <CAL9jLaaL2vvRYL6+ftu8vP9fDWWBoF5NFCGGL_nDj+_VSc5E4Q@mail.gmail.com> <ZH+hdvAwuZ7nN3vK@snel> <4dbb0ef4-91fc-6bbd-d979-2d0b736295ac@tu-dresden.de> <ZIBJUycE10HjIfAP@diehard.n-r-g.com> <BLAPR09MB63226569F3349669ABBEA60D9853A@BLAPR09MB6322.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/Ie8hyVPAidNxW3vtwAaDTbv_wYg>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Making ASPA AFI-Agnostic - coordination (Was: WGLC = draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification - ENDS 03/22/2023 (Mar 22 2023))
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 07 Jun 2023 15:06:17 -0000

Oliver:

> I agree, also 8210bis is NOT yet RFC, so we should not start treating drafts as finals, changes should be expected until the very last moment.  

The later in the process that changes happen, the more approval step need to be repeated.  In this case, we will need to repeat WG Last Call, IETF Last Call, and IESG Evaluation.  Of course, we want to get it right, but we should avoid this kind of re-work to the greatest extent possible.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email