Re: [Sidrops] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-02

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Wed, 26 December 2018 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 AE46F131026; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 06:51:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.393
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, RDNS_NONE=0.793, 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 A9nbzvrvITCu; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 06:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6249131010; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 06:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDD44E2F36; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:51:27 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zbGo1DDvk9HH; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:51:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [172.19.248.92] (unknown [104.153.224.168]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F147B4E2F21; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:51:21 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <m28t0cgyay.wl-randy@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:51:06 -0500
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying.all@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AF37EC12-1CA0-40B2-9224-698AF44B6286@sobco.com>
References: <154582975877.9431.8940530526143232465@ietfa.amsl.com> <m28t0cgyay.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/h5a6BuphR4ZuQggKvDMnXe3Pyag>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 08:27:21 -0800
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-02
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, 26 Dec 2018 14:51:40 -0000

that use of a MUST is commendable but its not exactly an interoperability issue 

to me “must” works in this case (and the other cases in this document)

but, that said, 2119 has been misused for kinda a long time so its not a new sin

Scott

> On Dec 26, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
> mornin’ scott,
> 
>> it is hard to see why it should be standards track or why it should 
>> be using RFC 2119 type terminology.
> 
> these are two separate issues.  
> 
> alvaro and the chairs can adjudicate what flavor of ice cream it should
> be.  it my memory says it was a wg decision.  i really do not care.
> 
> as to 2119 language, i kinda feel it should remain.  it is used
> sparingly. but is crucial when used.  e.g.
> 
>      all private keys MUST be protected when at rest in a secure
>      fashion.
> 
> i suspect we would want to keep that strongly prescriptive; but it is
> not a hill on which i am interested in dying.
> 
> randy