Re: [spring] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Thanks a lot for all your help and guidance in improving this document.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 9:06 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ketan,
>
> Thanks for the additional text in the -21, I think it is really helpful.
>
> Trimming heavily...
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 08:52:41AM +0530, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > Thanks for your time and your response. Please check inline below with
> KT3.
> >
> > We've also posted an update with changes to address your comments:
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-21
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 12:54 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 04:06:53PM +0530, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 7:32 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 09:21:04PM +0530, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:46 AM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <
> > > > > > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Section 10
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we also want to mention the security considerations of
> > > several
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > documents, including (but not limited to)
> > > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy and RFCs 8660, 8754,
> and
> > > 8986.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KT> Ack on the three RFCs, but convinced about the
> > > > > > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy since that depends on
> this
> > > and
> > > > > not
> > > > > > the other way around.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this relates to John's Discuss point and whether this
> document
> > > > > specifies the protocol behavior of the two bits in the context of
> the
> > > > > extension defined in draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy.  You
> > > need to
> > > > > understand draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy in order to
> > > understand
> > > > > the security considerations relating to the protocol behavior
> > > controlled by
> > > > > those two bits, and IMO the protocol behavior specified by those
> two
> > > bits
> > > > > is solely the responsibility of this document, so this document
> must
> > > > > incorporate the security considerations of
> > > > > draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy in order to fully
> document the
> > > > > security considerations of the concepts and protocol elements that
> this
> > > > > document defines.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > KT2> I am working with John to address his comments.
> > >
> > > Okay, the changes from -18 to -20 are looking promising, but I will let
> > > John decide when it's done.
> > >
> >
> > KT3> Our discussion with John is ongoing and seems like might take more
> > time. Would you be clearing your DISCUSS assuming the updates address
> your
> > concerns?
>
> Yes, I have already cleared since my specific Discuss-level concerns are
> addressed.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Ben
>