IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Drip] (reminder) RE: call for adoption for draft-ietf-drip-uas-rid

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 24 September 2020 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F473A0C81 for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 bIdl08ZgC6Ye for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 202C93A0C6C for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C0D389AA for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 00:47:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id zBbKdPLxTNPQ for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 00:47:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CAEF389A6 for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 00:47:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6999373 for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 01:08:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: tm-rid@ietf.org
References: <19515_1600237045_5F61ADF5_19515_198_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303154144E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <48056f00-9cea-aee7-fae1-4939f6e835f9@sandelman.ca>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 01:08:52 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <19515_1600237045_5F61ADF5_19515_198_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303154144E@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/HahrcF0nlBompIwEGh108LDqopk>
Subject: Re: [Drip] (reminder) RE: call for adoption for draft-ietf-drip-uas-rid
X-BeenThere: tm-rid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Drone Remote Identification Protocol <tm-rid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tm-rid/>
List-Post: <mailto:tm-rid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 05:09:02 -0000

On 2020-09-16 2:17 a.m., mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Re,
> 
> This s a nudge that the call is still open for one week.

> Silence does not mean support. So, please consider sharing your thoughts 

Actually, RFC7221 and RFC7282 have many things to say about this.

> This email starts a call for adoption for draft-ietf-drip-uas-rid 
> available here:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drip-uas-rid/
> 
> The call for adoption ends on 2020 September 23.  Please state clearly 
> your opinion whether you think the work should be adopted or not. If you 
> think the work should not be adopted, please state why.

I have read the document in August, and made a number of comments on it.
I made some comments about alternate ways to do the allocation, but I 
accept the rational for a /28.

I disagree that the zone is too big to be signed with DNSSEC, but this 
is an operational detail that can be decided later.

I believe that HHITs are the way to go for this work.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email