Re: [tig-diagnostics] Uploading icmp aup

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B26A11E810C for <tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jf+mQX41zRjc for <tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB6811E8095 for <tig-diagnostics@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=cpignata@cisco.com; l=2364; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342154112; x=1343363712; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=QPkX2TADsx8DSG2YtmOlskQbLVN8Lr1/uOYnLPwoo5c=; b=GBhf3V6GtC0Nt9z8xlM+6zSgybh+aqMAh/VkGAOO5Nby2aNCqFSHHzSF lKa1JKqefWcMvz1tMldmZcu/2egHqXtxPrbhIRzuqM0GzQD8tsxjDRpNQ kQnu17Pv1tq+Zv89/UDFhTFwT2d/dZ453crd5Z0xUNlT0gv0sETe2t1u2 Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 203
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAG+k/0+tJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFuBuBB4IgAQEBAwESAWYFBwQCAQgOAwQBAQEnByERFAkIAQEEDgUOFIdcAwYGmyCWLQ2JTopaZoUWYAOOTIEhhU2LBIMcgWaCXw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.77,577,1336348800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="101249891"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2012 04:35:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6D4ZBkF023199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:35:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.178]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:35:11 -0500
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [tig-diagnostics] Uploading icmp aup
Thread-Index: Ac1eDnniVeeFFlqMRHSC3u6qqfqRVwBeasDAAAwl1QAAAD6WAABIRUgA
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:35:10 +0000
Message-ID: <25A39BC8-952C-4EF7-92A5-14B46422194D@cisco.com>
References: <4FFB39FC.1080605@gmail.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D77008617B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4FFDBEDA.3050505@gmail.com> <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7700861D8@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7700861D8@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.104.19]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19036.000
x-tm-as-result: No--36.510100-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7D3E17D-9556-404A-85F0-B71726599D60"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, "tig-diagnostics@ietf.org" <tig-diagnostics@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tig-diagnostics] Uploading icmp aup
X-BeenThere: tig-diagnostics@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <tig-diagnostics.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tig-diagnostics>, <mailto:tig-diagnostics-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tig-diagnostics>
List-Post: <mailto:tig-diagnostics@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tig-diagnostics-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tig-diagnostics>, <mailto:tig-diagnostics-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 04:34:38 -0000

I agree that an approach of defining where ICMP should be used is more straightforward than the converse, and moving specifics to the bottom as examples only -- if needed at all.

The other comment, while I like "AUP", I wonder if Guideline (like in RFC 5405) is less controversial than the "P" word.

Ron, you said:
> In Section 1.1, demonstrate how all existing ICMP messages conform to that AUP. 

What about RPL [RFC6550]?

Thanks!

-- Carlos.

On Jul 11, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:

> I think that it is easier to say that ICMP should be used for X and for X only, than to list all of the things that ICMP should *not* be used for.
> 
>                                             Ron
> 
> P.S. BTW, you may be talking to the wrong person about this. The last time I was asked to formulate an AUP for the Internet, I quoted a highly inappropriate song from the Broadway play, "Avenue Q".
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:59 PM
>> To: Ronald Bonica
>> Cc: Carlos Pignataro; tig-diagnostics@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [tig-diagnostics] Uploading icmp aup
>> 
>> On 7/11/12 9:51 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
>>> In Section 3, you can briefly mention that ICMP should not be used as
>>> a routing or network management protocol.
>> 
>> That mostly sounds reasonable.  This morning it occurred to me that a
>> better summary might be that ICMP should not be used to install/
>> configure state in network devices, but that's still pretty fuzzy
>> around the edges.
>> 
>> Melinda
> 
>