IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: (with COMMENT)

"Brian Weis (bew)" <bew@cisco.com> Tue, 28 November 2017 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bew@cisco.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 1921B1270AC; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:48:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 UJfXKOSdZS1W; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D2221200C1; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:48:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2628; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1511833695; x=1513043295; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=zFiSUAtO0JhPZg8yhzokcC6L7h0N0EVFBJb+OG3IqKA=; b=eL2+yAt71lp2rhZCeDjAK/PnEK/xYfvT5DXBM0UkUPOofBeMMGqQoOM6 Xr0vOAmEj6otUuKc2GFRM/UZcKL82AxgAY1y4h8qLpvSnjy32zQP0Q+T3 7zU/rmVwqrTIEwujZC3S9SBSRnOm8SVisF+4Hk1vj6sko3wJNhiq4tcqp A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CaAAAkwBxa/51dJa1ZAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDPGZuJweDeIogjnUegX2WbRCCAQojhRgCGoRaPxgBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIUfAQEBAQIBIxFFBQsCAQgYAgImAgICMBUFCwIEDgWKGggQpnSCJ4p5AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBD4IrggeDZwuCd4RpARIBHxcKJoJOMYIyBYo3mA8Ch3CNGoIWhgyLLIJRiiWJFwIRGQGBOQEfOWFXGG8VYwGBfoMHgU53AYdpgSSBFAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,466,1505779200"; d="scan'208";a="37146222"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Nov 2017 01:48:14 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAS1mDBa009245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:48:14 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:48:13 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:48:13 -0500
From: "Brian Weis (bew)" <bew@cisco.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover@ietf.org>, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "sidrops-chairs@ietf.org" <sidrops-chairs@ietf.org>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTV9K7o0QanhUvCE+m96KO3TrmlaMpehIA
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:48:12 +0000
Message-ID: <39E1426B-3EBD-4254-9763-966FF0E88463@cisco.com>
References: <151006405964.18653.226226090663575282.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <151006405964.18653.226226090663575282.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.208.71]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <6D858BE68C3D704D8336AF211025E2EF@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/pk_kWJCKO6qFMJZb-GlvU_eXIFk>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Mirja Kühlewind'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: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:48:17 -0000

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for your review. Please see replies prefaced with BEW:

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 6:14 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This document really reads like it should be an informational document, or
> maybe a BCP. Further, the shepherd write-up says "Internet Standard final
> status" but I see Proposed Standard in the datatracker...? I would recommend to
> go for BCP if the wg can agree to that.

BEW: The original intended status was Proposed Standard. Specifying a status of BCP seems 
reasonable to me. I don’t have any objection to such a change if the WG wishes it.  

> Also, should ietf-sidr-rtr-keying maybe be a normative reference, or is this
> just one example? The use of this reference in section 3.1 isn’t clear to me
> with this respect: „The key rollover process is dependent on the key
> provisioning mechanisms adopted by an AS [I-D.ietf-sidr-rtr-keying].“

BEW: Upon reflection, I agree this reference should be normative. Thanks.

Thanks,
Brian

-- 
Brian Weis
Security, CSG, Cisco Systems
Telephone: +1 408 526 4796
Email: bew@cisco.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email