Re: [Teas] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 June 2016 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8CB12DC6B; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 nujZldsmO3YP; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:45:40 -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 D525912DC6A; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u5G0jaP7036063 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:45:36 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.4]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Matt Hartley <mhartley@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:45:42 -0500
Message-ID: <55BABF99-C746-4F16-9F22-9E6D59EC6004@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <a0f6ab97990a40fa814f6d0af5f2e4d3@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <20160613113422.12482.53926.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <a0f6ab97990a40fa814f6d0af5f2e4d3@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/J8SVFfmo7tYHqhCdux0rjS92F4g>
Cc: "vbeeram@juniper.net" <vbeeram@juniper.net>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:45:42 -0000

On 15 Jun 2016, at 17:36, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote:

> Ben,
>
>> - 5.3: "...this SHOULD NOT be done unless explicitly mandated by 
>> local
>>    policy."
>>
>> Is that the same as saying this should default to off unless the
>> administrator chooses to turn it on?
>>
>
> Yes. Do you think it's clear enough as is, or should we add your 
> phrasing of it as well?

I'm not sure "my phrasing" has been sufficiently word smithed.

But when I see "local policy", sometimes that means policy local to an 
implementation as opposed to policy stated by the protocol 
specification, or policy local to an administrative domain as opposed to 
the implementation. But it may be that your terminology is sufficiently 
understood by the target community. So I'd say it's your choice :-)

>
> Cheers
>
> Matt