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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 April 2019 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 393731203F6; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 kPMgRI13izQM; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39319120405; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x3BMgFhP012398 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:42:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1555022537; bh=1hXEXur/czUpo5Plm4FI5VKLJVSsU0+j5DOOqzyO+lg=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=JYFedHrNBWHmmPCbP+6hdJONqocxz3CQv7OqfuuJMtMFI0spCKWsgdkS3Tdze6BBX +PQ7TXwbORWPRmHTEANTnnQvBzj//OlveMAV0t8x/0X21DXSPglvdv5Pca6vnrcSw6 EfsnCP/Jc6ZSFAUyxfAZdPbHsQDBNngH5r2MtcMg=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: "Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <oliver.borchert@nist.gov>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "sidrops-chairs@ietf.org" <sidrops-chairs@ietf.org>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis@ietf.org>
References: <155493194558.22757.15388423154564497249.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <SN6PR09MB3167E2F652CF94E50958427E982F0@SN6PR09MB3167.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <b7492915-8b7f-f575-b9f5-373d838a78a7@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:42:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR09MB3167E2F652CF94E50958427E982F0@SN6PR09MB3167.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/xn2sysgcIPTVFyJB3zVXkLXkrsA>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:42:23 -0000

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 <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 5:32 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis@ietf.org; Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>et>; sidrops-chairs@ietf.org; morrowc@ops-netman.net; sidrops@ietf.org
> 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.
>
>