Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 30 October 2020 04:30 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA36F3A0147; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LfXiu4P4q-UO; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 924C43A0114; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.122.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28CBF3279BC; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 05:30:09 +0100 (CET)
To: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Cc: "ippm-chairs@ietf.org" <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <DM6PR13MB3066F695F1ABFC22C52CEA3BD21D0@DM6PR13MB3066.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C801DE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <a924824f-1838-9306-f167-21d3e5399745@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:30:06 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C7C2E1C43D652C4E9E49FE7517C236CB02C801DE@dggeml529-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/czr8w7FTMUFkQRidZwU4mEUajIE>
Subject: Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 04:30:17 -0000

Working Group,

I support adopting this document.

However I have one question; if it leads to (very small) changes in the 
document, this can be done after the adoption.

I'm looking at

    HMAC-SHA: Consists of two parts
    HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code (expanded in the document).
    SHA: Secure Hash Algorithm (not expanded, but on the other hand it an
         well-known abbreviation)

When we combine two abbreviations what rules apply, is it enough that 
eachpart is expanded "somewhere" even if the parts are found at 
different places. Or does the rule "expand at first occurrence apply?

I guess that in part this depends on whether we view HMAC-SHA as one 
unit or two separate parts? And how familiar we believe our readers are 
with the abbreviations.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but would suggest that we place
HMAC-SHA in the "Abbreviations" in section 2.2 and expamnd it fully.

On 30/10/2020 10:01, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote:
> Hi WG,
> 
> Support. However, there are some encoding format changes among versions, 
> hope the encoding format can be stable in the following revision ASAP.
> 
> Many thanks for the authors’ contribution!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cheng
> 
> *From:* spring [mailto:spring-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *James 
> Guichard
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:52 PM
> *To:* spring@ietf.org
> *Cc:* ippm-chairs@ietf.org; spring-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [spring] WG Adoption Call for 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11
> 
> Dear WG:
> 
> This message starts a 3 week WG adoption call for document 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11 ending 
> November 12^th 2020. Please note that this document has several changes 
> from v-10 that were requested by the SPRING and IPPM chairs. For this 
> reason, the chairs have extended the adoption call for an additional 
> week to allow the WG enough time to review these changes before deciding 
> on WG adoption.
> 
> Some background:
> 
> Several review comments were received previously for document 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10. The 
> SPRING and IPPM chairs considered those comments, and upon review of 
> this version of the document, determined the following:
> 
>   * The SPRING document should describe only the procedures relevant to
>     SPRING with pointers to non-SPRING document/s that define any
>     extensions. Several extensions including*Control Code Field
>     Extension for TWAMP Light Messages*, *Loss Measurement Query Message
>     Extensions*, and *Loss Measurement Response Message Extensions *were
>     included in
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 and
>     should be removed from the SPRING document.
>   * The TWAMP extensions included in
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 should
>     be described in a new document published in the IPPM WG. 
> 
> These conclusions were discussed with the authors of 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 the result 
> of which is the publication of the following two documents:
> 
>   * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11. The
>     subject of this WG adoption call.
>   * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00. This
>     document will be progressed (if determined by the WG) within the
>     IPPM WG.
> 
> After review of the SPRING document please indicate support (or not) for 
> WG adoption to the mailing list. Please also provide comments/reasons 
> for that support (or lack thereof) as silence will not be considered as 
> consent.
> 
> Finally, the chairs would like to thank the authors for their efforts in 
> this matter.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jim, Bruno, & Joel
> 
> //
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> spring@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64