Re: [Sidrops] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Thanks! These two changes look good to me. I'll clear when a new version 
of the draft is submitted (note, however, that I am out of the office 
tomorrow).

/a

On 4/11/19 4:33 PM, Borchert, Oliver (Fed) wrote:
> Adam,
>
> I also addressed ...
>
> §7:
>
>>   To be modified to:
>>
>>     Algorithm   Digest          Signature       Specification
>>     Suite       Algorithm       Algorithm       Pointer
>>     Identifier
>>   +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
>>   | 0x2-0xFA   | Unassigned    | Unassigned   |                       |
>>   +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
> And changed it to
>
> +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
> | 0x02-0xFA   | Unassigned    | Unassigned   |                       |
> +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
>
>
> Thanks,
> Oliver
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:32 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Chris Morrow <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> Importance: High
>
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis-04: Discuss
>
> 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://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7Coliver.borchert%40nist.gov%7Ce3d258b2fec2468669b308d6bdfc0897%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636905287512890505&amp;sdata=V%2Fkt7QEPhMzX6OVeunDQh2B8kAq2yWSaqhyOaP7NS%2FE%3D&amp;reserved=0
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Coliver.borchert%40nist.gov%7Ce3d258b2fec2468669b308d6bdfc0897%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636905287512890505&amp;sdata=EwF%2BbEoX%2BW1%2F171PkKHeeN9NckdnGEUMT9M97wdlWTg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to everyone who worked on this document.
>
> This issue should be trivial to fix, but it's still a blocker.
>
> §2.1:
>
>>      Special-Use algorithm IDs span from 0xFA (250) to 0xFE (254).
> §7:
>
>>   In addition IANA is asked to register the following address space for
>>   "Special-Use":
>>
>>     Algorithm   Digest          Signature       Specification
>>     Suite       Algorithm       Algorithm       Pointer
>>     Identifier
>>   +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
>>   | 0xFB-0xFE  | Special-Use   | Special-Use  | This Document         |
>>   +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
>
> The ranges here do not match ([0xFA-0xFE] != [0xFB-0xFE]). Presuming that the text in Section 2.1 is what was intended, this issue impacts all of the tables in section 7.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with Alexey's discuss.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §7:
>
>>   To be modified to:
>>
>>     Algorithm   Digest          Signature       Specification
>>     Suite       Algorithm       Algorithm       Pointer
>>     Identifier
>>   +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
>>   | 0x2-0xFA   | Unassigned    | Unassigned   |                       |
>>   +------------+---------------+--------------+-----------------------+
> Nit: The prose has been updated to use "0x02" rather than "0x2". It would be nice if the IANA section matched this update.
>
>