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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 26 December 2018 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 B461E130FED; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 06:25:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 v-iQLeJfRHL9; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 06:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC2E1130FEC; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 06:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1gcA7i-0005x1-13; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 14:25:26 +0000
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 09:25:25 -0500
Message-ID: <m28t0cgyay.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying.all@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <154582975877.9431.8940530526143232465@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <154582975877.9431.8940530526143232465@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/kN-H0bEbAZucVksgA6iCW4SxT78>
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 14:25:32 -0000

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