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 17:08 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 49A211289B5; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:08:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 33ihHXZ87TND; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:08:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A82FE128796; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:08:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=22548; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1511888914; x=1513098514; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Oa9+IPjzILo9s0xKrxGNqprG2AiWvwLdUwigLdEk+3g=; b=T32lZ/9zPdGKzuAKLCNLZnqNdFr7cggJDuX+nHtF9I9Mhq3y5cqY/Vv6 fVEcE4UA1ldNcRra5yOqHlpM0bGqcSAQ6SU8Q+DN+NXfCFkszSH0iek+m asOjtTuGp6FI43nXkYC0utPHqKfIqYoYTgyFCxbEbnYWQPc2dw6ZBtTmY Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CeAACclx1a/4oNJK1aAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGCSnKBVCcHg3iKII8XgVcmiGiOChCCAQqFOwIahGw/GAEBAQEBAQEBAWsohSABBAEjVgULAgEIDjEDAgICHxEUBgsCBA4FiT5MAw0Ip3GCJ4cyDYMmAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYM8ggmDPikLgneCa4IBARIBNgomgk4xgjIFmSmIYz0CkBKEeZNPglGKYYhgAhEZAYE5AR85YXBvFWQBgX6DB4FOd4gsgSSBFAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.44,468,1505779200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="36947734"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Nov 2017 17:08:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vASH8XFr008477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:08:33 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; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:08:32 -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; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 12:08:32 -0500
From: "Brian Weis (bew)" <bew@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "sidrops-chairs@ietf.org" <sidrops-chairs@ietf.org>, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTV9K7o0QanhUvCE+m96KO3TrmlaMpehIAgADgMYCAACDzgA==
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:08:32 +0000
Message-ID: <17B22FFB-0821-4EDD-AD0F-6627204EF64F@cisco.com>
References: <151006405964.18653.226226090663575282.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <39E1426B-3EBD-4254-9763-966FF0E88463@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxYEKR2-2_gUbLuJjEG=0Hf=QNax1xDy5Th2rM4uUf-nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxYEKR2-2_gUbLuJjEG=0Hf=QNax1xDy5Th2rM4uUf-nw@mail.gmail.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: [10.32.172.166]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_17B22FFB08214EDDAD0F6627204EF64Fciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/spC71lgaIorVv43OIvUeH2KT1ik>
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 17:08:41 -0000

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for your note. Comments are referenced with BEW:.

On Nov 28, 2017, at 7:10 AM, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

On November 27, 2017 at 8:48:20 PM, Brian Weis (bew) (bew@cisco.com<mailto:bew@cisco.com>) wrote:

Hi!

> 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.

Given that the document describes a process I would have leaned towards BCP as well…but BGPSec is not deployed, so that seems a little too much as it wouldn’t really be documenting the “best current practice”.

FWIW, I’m fine leaving the status as is in hopes that the process will be used if/when BGPSec is deployed.  I wouldn’t object to Informational either.

BEW: I think it’s still fair to plan for BGPsec to be deployed, and so standards track would be a reasonable status.

> 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.

This saves me a DISCUSS. ;-)

BEW: Thanks! For the record, based on Alexey’s comment I reviewed the rest of the informative references, and I believe [I-D.ietf-sidr-rtr-keying] is the only one that should be promoted to normative.

Thanks,
Brian

Thanks!

Alvaro.

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