Re: [Sidrops] proposal to update SIDROPS charter (requirement for multiple implementations before IESG/RFC publication)

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Wed, 16 December 2020 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.org>
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 4598F3A09E7 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 03:46:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 pqST22b1Qf2C for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 03:45:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (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 5513B3A09EF for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 03:45:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id o19so21928047lfo.1 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 03:45:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=algebras-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1z5HqNibHcvhahZr2HyLNYobRt9TC/X9zBqqb163+XE=; b=jGXwfccMoQAf+kO7x6SYSNVWKXTSWZx320QGTGoEqbcTdB9dn/XK5yYALQ3rZr+DRq prHl9QJq6Ny0te1CXbVWdC0zt5RwYF5RYTg4aDe7+P+V9Dfwy5bGNOh+g6H/af1zo4mQ H0xbz4EeWwrm+2WP2GK2E9VHLuqg8XGxvywblpWr09pRMSjJcCCYN2meGqqqzg5LwqBV XdLR1bQfJYd19P860ZgLfbuABCK8GGjJ6kQoX0Gk9TcruTT2t4zdP76OhHvZrUYHIjAg hr4b/pvtHnV5hJcqibfsJB+cfWAubzG0PkmEUVqZd9PTpB5twfuKE2blI2dApEroW9Gh ASSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1z5HqNibHcvhahZr2HyLNYobRt9TC/X9zBqqb163+XE=; b=NALSUwlOcTsTjSyTHMpBTmQ0UAXhiVtP8HbHgBvUEKjcnMQDmf2UFz+GZvsSkLEEHr lhwVSDSD7Fs7vpI03Bc3DW7Fd72cgbV8vHBxLg2kPz9mzmjJqGdjExU4g+KR/rFp2TN4 XzY9u1ItO8p5Ux4/sJc8liN7ihJsknNIHkcpU7ne9UYDpeE5veyjJyhyRW7zq+HCXJiM U+gQlfUFi9h5YJ2wiWSbwSW0W3ZrBFSZRluf5KvPvUo5eH1xSeyDLJFlSLRhh8bfO4fz EgodTQ1pITp7ex40IZ4yUR4yBJq2I/LjJbH04pDoHbpauN1HsPq8gm0FrCI+uqmXryOX OGaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ID66XJaqB8/Zy/aPi0BpKovI48/spSiLHnk4Co4pPLPt8aesB XcUbYh5/2mM6OD9I+/bGikfN3Ajtpho3uMEertjori7VK5NJkQfu
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWLm7bGzVm0PZWQ/GPN1mAccftt5j7FpLB3vXp87w3GSIerQ3GosF+iKoMxcKe0QQ3pUyqc7yLBO/D9maHB6o=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2049:: with SMTP id t9mr14949976ljo.58.1608119154801; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 03:45:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <X8+NbXjEfH7Balvq@bench.sobornost.net>
In-Reply-To: <X8+NbXjEfH7Balvq@bench.sobornost.net>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 21:45:43 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn09vm9e++cyAw-m1W8LgU4Y=jNC4ouDcBBrK_1obZQP5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/Oal41iVkPT1cnAgnz3eyt4XgRa0>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] proposal to update SIDROPS charter (requirement for multiple implementations before IESG/RFC publication)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 16 Dec 2020 11:46:02 -0000

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:28 AM Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I propose some following text detailing a requirement for multiple
> implementations to exist prior to RFC publication will be beneficial to
> the working group.
>
> Our neighbors at the IDR working group are known to have a similar
> requirement, which has dramatically improved the quality of that working
> group's specifications and subsequently the deployability of IDR
> technologies. I hope the same can be achieved in SIDROPS.
>
> IDR participants track implementation reports & interopability testing
> through internet-drafts or their Wiki
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/Protocol%20implementations%20Reports
>
> Here are some examples of what reports can look like:
>
>     https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis
>     https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-rfc5575bis%20implementations
>     https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-large-community%20implementations
>
> Proposed text to add to the SIDROPS charter:
>
> """
>     Specifications produced by the SIDROPS working group are intended to
>     address a practical need where a standard specification can assist
>     both vendors and consumers of cryptographic PKIX products to be
>     assured that a standards conformant implementation will undertake
>     certain functions in a known manner, and that, as appropriate,
>     implementations of the standard specification from different vendors
>     will indeed interoperate in intended ways. The SIDROPS working group
>     requires interopability reports from at least two different
>     implementations of a proposed specification, prior to publication as
>     RFC.
> """
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>

I think this would be sensible. From a CA, producer-side point of
view, I think having confidence of interop demonstrated, and having
this in both producer and consumer (signer and validator)  would be
net beneficial.

cheers

-george