Thanks, Michael
Brian,
At IETF106 i thought if Bens review would remove all discuss, we would have
finished IESG review, but that is not the case because two of the
IESG members that had approved ACP draft have since left office, so
their votes do not count. I did report that at ANIMA WG @IETF106.
At IETF106 we had both the ACP report from me of -21, as well as Ben's
presentation on the main issue he saw, the encoding of the ACP
domain information field in the certificate.
While i had hoped that the in-person discuss about that issue would
resolve that discuss because we did explain all the argments for it,
his discuss of -21 on 12/30/2019 did i think not change his position,
instead it also mentioned IPsec experts supporting that view, but
without a technical explanation why, or who all those experts where.
In January, i worked on -22 to answer to Bens review of -21. which i
published 02/03/2020. For the encoding issue i rewrote the bullet
points justifying the choice of encoding, primarily pointing to the
fact that rfc822 names are nowadays quite common identifiers in a
lot of e.g.: web systems, in addition to all the benefits of avoiding
new or extensions to certificate parsing libraries and the like.
Through IETF106 and writeup of -22 i even think more this
is a pragmatic, prudent and logical choice, and i couldn't find
anything in the cert related RFCs i read that seemed to contradict this for me.
In February, Ben had told me, that -22 resolves his other points,
except that that he continues on his position re. the encoding.
But there was also security profile work improved in -22.
Shortly after IETF 106, Eric Vyncke took over as sponsoring AD for
ACP. He provided a review with 72 comments in january to the authors.
After i finished -22, i worked on these 72 points through february and posted
-23/24 last week.
In addition, during february, i also started to reach out to IPsec
mailing list to further discuss details of the proposed enhancements
to the IPsec profile. I ran out of time last week, and plan to
finalize those fixes quickly (together with the WG fix sugestions i
received for -24).
In addition, i will also reach out directly to the IPsec experts
i know and ask for the rfc822name encoding. I did that already
last year, but never received replies.
Eric told me, he wants to put ACP back onto the IESG agenda for April,
and this would result in a new IETF review.
Thats all i know.
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 09:57:56AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Could those on the hook for the ACP and BRSKI drafts, which have been
> > very seriously delayed, update the WG with the plan for getting them
> > approved? It seems to me that there has been endless nitpicking, of the
> > kind that is appropriate for full Standard status, but very surprising
> > for Proposed Standard where there is no expectation of perfection.
>
> I don't know what kind of plan I can relate: It seems to be above my pay
> grade.
>
> For BRSKI, since IETF106, all DISCUSSes, except Ben Kaduk's desire to have
> the examples redone have been cleared. I had originally tagged redoing that
> for AUTH48 time, since all IANA allocations would be done by then.
> All allocations have been done at this point, and in January I redid the
> examples in the non-normative Appendix with the right OIDs. Ben found some
> errors (one repeated certificate), and so I generated the examples again.
>
> I then asked Jim Schaad and Max Pritikin (a BRSKI co-author, who has been
> redirected on other important Cisco work), to validate. Max reviewed, and
> this resulted in an additional clarifiying sentence committed to the github.
> (I thought I posted it on Monday, I don't seem to have. I will do that now.
>
> Warren Kumari has taken over as the sponsoring AD.
>
> > Can we expect these drafts to be approved in the next one or two weeks,
> > for example? If not then, when?
>
> I know that ACP has gone through a similar set of DISCUSSes, and I think that
> they are mostly all done.
> I don't see an update from Ben.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane/ballot/
> says that most have No Objections, rather than Yes. Three YES are needed to
> override a DISCUSS.
> I guess this document has been in front of the IESG since 2018 when Terry was
> an AD!
>
> I think that the WG participants need to actively engage the DISCUSSes and
> the choices that the WG has made.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
--
---
t...@cs.fau.de
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
