IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-08: (with COMMENT)

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Sat, 05 March 2022 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A63B3A1716; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 05:25:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 yoSW1Kh8xY3U; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 05:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-1.web-hosting.com (server217-1.web-hosting.com [198.54.114.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA0CD3A1715; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 05:25:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender: Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender :Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=kF0K4jc7EISzznG0Nyk3v2IDFu1Pnuh8srxliR3W3lc=; b=2bsSakhV4h4tEqV/opVvZiNe26 cgBHTg9K8rTk/fSaHHrycQV2DgjNK7Pg/2TmLtmNqjWZRLUIYheaTtBmg13V1yE8B8qPHxXDiAcJz g6JMwl/I5UEjR45lzNHfoqcMFL0fmcnfLkE0fBIYOe4BQG8M7QTotwzK7O+/D9J1PR2flt9jPHKtr 674JGc9oSRMigyfKdWDyWISZn5Yv3i/cN++UFM81a8aihyZgmyWSnvR4utsBRlEihbmhiaHqCWcUH ogUV1Ny406Ozr7WDDAoxbB0j6NklDYLb6ONTsh2q72XRhSsOGVl93n/JBTF2O8EY1k1t2n6MhaCXE 9FEFJfOQ==;
Received: from cpe-172-114-237-88.socal.res.rr.com ([172.114.237.88]:54693 helo=smtpclient.apple) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1nQUPo-008lOP-9h; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 08:25:49 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9B871472-70A8-475C-BB63-385D0EE312C7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB4187030702F7F62A296861CA9F069@HE1PR07MB4187.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2022 05:25:40 -0800
Cc: "tcpm@ietf.org Extensions" <tcpm@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, tcpm-chairs <tcpm-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <4E0CAD39-162F-4B6D-AE8B-2A18FCA60920@strayalpha.com>
References: <HE1PR07MB4187030702F7F62A296861CA9F069@HE1PR07MB4187.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (19D52)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/WpKMayInePdwwfmX6-saqZBB6Q0>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 13:25:59 -0000


> On Mar 5, 2022, at 1:22 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: touch@strayalpha.com <touch@strayalpha.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 4:50 AM
> To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker
> Cc: The IESG; draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs; tcpm@ietf.org Extensions; michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de
> Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-08: (with COMMENT)
>  
> Hi, Zahed,
> 
> To your point below, yes. There is no clear need to hold this document up to be in the “group” with 793bis and there’s no reason to have this refer to the 793 draft, as it is dependent on neither vs. the original 793.
> 
> [zs] in that case, why is 793 a normative reference  here?

This doc normatively depends on the parts of 793 that don’t change in 793bis.

It does not depend on anything new in 793bis. 

That’s why it doesn’t need to be in the 793bis group and why it doesn’t need to cite the 793bis draft. 

Additionally, if this doc were published before 793bis, there would be no need for 793bis to “update” this doc.

That’s why we can cite 793 now and let the RFC editor update that reference if needed.

Joe

> 
> // Zahed 
> 
>> On Mar 2, 2022, at 1:53 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-08: No Objection
>> 
>> 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://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Thanks for the efforts here.
>> 
>> Should this specification still be referring (normative) to RFC793 while 793-bis is almost complete?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tcpm mailing list
> tcpm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email