Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Eric Rescorla]

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi EKR,
>
> Here is the text that has been added in the working copy -
>
> As stated in [RFC3692], experiments
>>using these code points are not intended to be used in general
>>deployments and due care taken while assigning the correct
>>codepoints.
>
>

This doesn't quite seem grammatical. Maybe

"are not intended to be used in general deployments and due care must be
taken
to ensure that two experiments with the same code points are not run in
the same environment".

-Ekr


"

>   See [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of
>>experimental codepoints.
>
>
> Also RFC3692 is made normative.
>
> Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/
> master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt
> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-
> pcep-exp-codepoints-04=https://raw.githubusercontent.
> com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
> exp-codepoints-05.txt
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Eric Rescorla  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Adrian Farrel 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But so what? You are not supposed to expect anything other than a crash!
>>> You are not supposed to run conflicting experiments and failure does not
>>> need to be graceful.
>>>
>>
>> But as I noted in my original review, your document does not say that.
>> You might argue that RFC 3692 says that (though it's not clear to me that
>> it precisely does), but as you don't cite it as a normative reference, you
>> can't rely on that either. If you'd like to modify the document to state
>> that (or point me to the text in your document which does so), I'll remove
>> my DISCUSS.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There is nothing new here! Nothing new in this document. Nothing to see,
>>> move along now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com]
>>> *Sent:* 08 January 2018 13:19
>>> *To:* Adrian Farrel
>>> *Cc:* The IESG; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org;
>>> pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on
>>> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Adrian Farrel 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The purpose of this document is to adjust the registries to allow
>>>
>>> experimentation, not to redefine or refine the meaning of Experimental
>>> codepoints.
>>>
>>> We do draw out the security concern that we think 3692 glossed over, but
>>> this is
>>> a reminder to protocol specs or implementers that they must watch out.
>>> This is
>>> not a protocol spec and doesn't need to describe how implementations
>>> handle
>>> conflicts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, but it does need to describe the impact of what happens when there
>>> is confusion, which it presently does not. This is not solely a security
>>> concern but also an interoperability and correctness concern.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Ekr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi EKR,

Here is the text that has been added in the working copy -

As stated in [RFC3692], experiments
>using these code points are not intended to be used in general
>deployments and due care taken while assigning the correct
>codepoints.  See [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of
>experimental codepoints.


Also RFC3692 is made normative.

Working Copy:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt
Diff:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Eric Rescorla  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Adrian Farrel  wrote:
>
>>
>> But so what? You are not supposed to expect anything other than a crash!
>> You are not supposed to run conflicting experiments and failure does not
>> need to be graceful.
>>
>
> But as I noted in my original review, your document does not say that. You
> might argue that RFC 3692 says that (though it's not clear to me that it
> precisely does), but as you don't cite it as a normative reference, you
> can't rely on that either. If you'd like to modify the document to state
> that (or point me to the text in your document which does so), I'll remove
> my DISCUSS.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>>
>> There is nothing new here! Nothing new in this document. Nothing to see,
>> move along now.
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com]
>> *Sent:* 08 January 2018 13:19
>> *To:* Adrian Farrel
>> *Cc:* The IESG; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org;
>> pce-cha...@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on
>> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Adrian Farrel 
>> wrote:
>>
>> The purpose of this document is to adjust the registries to allow
>>
>> experimentation, not to redefine or refine the meaning of Experimental
>> codepoints.
>>
>> We do draw out the security concern that we think 3692 glossed over, but
>> this is
>> a reminder to protocol specs or implementers that they must watch out.
>> This is
>> not a protocol spec and doesn't need to describe how implementations
>> handle
>> conflicts.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, but it does need to describe the impact of what happens when there is
>> confusion, which it presently does not. This is not solely a security
>> concern but also an interoperability and correctness concern.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Dhruv Dhody]

Ack.

https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/commit/995e1a51964a8a6ac33d5e1e0cc1e40d41cd01ea

Thanks!
Dhruv

Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/
master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-
pcep-exp-codepoints-04=https://raw.githubusercontent.
com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt




On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Eric Rescorla  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
>> Hi EKR,
>>
>> Here is the text that has been added in the working copy -
>>
>> As stated in [RFC3692], experiments
>>>using these code points are not intended to be used in general
>>>deployments and due care taken while assigning the correct
>>>codepoints.
>>
>>
>
> This doesn't quite seem grammatical. Maybe
>
> "are not intended to be used in general deployments and due care must be
> taken
> to ensure that two experiments with the same code points are not run in
> the same environment".
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> "
>
>>   See [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of
>>>experimental codepoints.
>>
>>
>> Also RFC3692 is made normative.
>>
>> Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.
>> com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-
>> codepoints-05.txt
>> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-
>> codepoints-04=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/
>> dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Eric Rescorla  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Adrian Farrel 
>>> wrote:

 But so what? You are not supposed to expect anything other than a
 crash! You are not supposed to run conflicting experiments and failure does
 not need to be graceful.

>>>
>>> But as I noted in my original review, your document does not say that.
>>> You might argue that RFC 3692 says that (though it's not clear to me that
>>> it precisely does), but as you don't cite it as a normative reference, you
>>> can't rely on that either. If you'd like to modify the document to state
>>> that (or point me to the text in your document which does so), I'll remove
>>> my DISCUSS.
>>>
>>> -Ekr
>>>
>>>

 There is nothing new here! Nothing new in this document. Nothing to
 see, move along now.



 Adrian



 *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com]
 *Sent:* 08 January 2018 13:19
 *To:* Adrian Farrel
 *Cc:* The IESG; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org;
 pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
 *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on
 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04: (with DISCUSS)





 Hi Adrian,



 Thanks for your thoughts.





 On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:58 AM, Adrian Farrel 
 wrote:

 The purpose of this document is to adjust the registries to allow

 experimentation, not to redefine or refine the meaning of Experimental
 codepoints.

 We do draw out the security concern that we think 3692 glossed over,
 but this is
 a reminder to protocol specs or implementers that they must watch out.
 This is
 not a protocol spec and doesn't need to describe how implementations
 handle
 conflicts.



 No, but it does need to describe the impact of what happens when there
 is confusion, which it presently does not. This is not solely a security
 concern but also an interoperability and correctness concern.



 -Ekr




 Ciao,
 Adrian



>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce