Subject: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 05:54:32 -0700

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this is a short discussion and I can change my ballot to a Yes...

The applicability section says "Until an IANA registry for OWAMP Mode
values is established, the use this feature in OWAMP implementations MUST
be arranged privately among consenting OWAMP users."

Is there an issue with this document creating that registry?  Or, if
separation is needed, a companion document spun quickly to create this
registry?  The functionality specified here seems quite applicable to
OWAMP and requiring private agreements to use it seems sub-optimal.

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 10:11:29 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman
...
> values is established, the use this feature in OWAMP implementations
> MUST be arranged privately among consenting OWAMP users."
> 
> registry?  
[ACM] 

I can spin-up a companion doc to create the OWAMP registry, 
should be posted in about an hour.

Al

> The functionality specified here seems quite applicable to

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 12:44:00 -0400

...
> I can spin-up a companion doc to create the OWAMP registry, should be
> posted in about an hour.
> 
> Al
> 
> 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00

took a little longer than an hour, we had a power outage here.
This memo suggests the (new) assignment for IPsec mode in the draft IESG 
is considering, so perhaps IPsec-09 can continue on its way.

Al

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 13:04:19 -0400

Hi All,

> is considering, so perhaps IPsec-09 can continue on its way.

I will cut you some slack on the 1-hour promise given your power outage. :)

One issue we have is that IPsec-09 can't be published before your draft
is approved and the IANA creates the registry.

The text in IPsec-09 should be updated to reflect the soon-to-be
existence of the registry.

This is the point where the shepherding AD and WG should chime in.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:15:28 -0500

Hi, Brian,

> This is the point where the shepherding AD and WG should chime in.

I'm happy to give the WG a moment to chime in, but just to make sure I
understand your point, it's to create a normative dependency on the
companion draft creating the registry, so that IPsec-09 can be approved,
but will not be published until the draft creating the registry is
approved.

Is that it?

To the WG - is creating a registry OK? Let's start there ...

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 11:41:10 -0400

Hi Spencer,

> but will not be published until the draft creating the registry is

Yes.  We want IPsec-09 to say the right thing about OWAMP Mode values.

Brian

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:45:14 -0400

> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:41 AM
> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-
> 09: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> Hi Spencer,
> 
...
> > companion draft creating the registry, so that IPsec-09 can be
> > approved, but will not be published until the draft creating the
> > registry is approved.
> >
> > Is that it?
> 

To say "no" to an OWAMP registry is to say that the WG does
not want to extend OWAMP. The WG has agreed on a new feature
applicable to OWAMP, and the scope of the IPsec draft indicates the
need for the new registry to allow the feature to be used
in a standard way.  So, the documented WG consensus is very close
to "yes, we need a registry", and it's simple to ask explicitly.

IMO, Yes,
Al

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:40:53 -0500

Hi, Al,

> to "yes, we need a registry", and it's simple to ask explicitly.

So, what I was asking unclearly, was if creating a registry NOW is OK with
the working group ...

Brian (Trammell) and Bill,

If IPPM is headed this direction, my suggestion is

- Al makes the IPsec draft normatively dependent on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00.  That could
reasonably clear Brian Haberman's Discuss (or not, do the right thing).

- The chairs do whatever IPPM normal practice is, to adopt the registry
draft as a working group item, determine that IPPM has consensus for the
draft, and request publication on the registry draft.

- The IPsec draft needs four more positions, so I'm not seeing a strong
reason to yank it off this week's telechat agenda. It can sit in REF-HOLD
until the registry draft is ready to publish.

That will slow the IPsec draft down, but if this text belongs in the
registry draft and not in the IPec draft, that's what needs to happen, I
believe.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Bill Cerveny <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:09:46 -0400

Hi Spencer,

In trying to provide an informed response, I did some really brief research. I looked at RFC 5618, "Mixed Security Mode for the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)”. This document included the IANA text to create a TWAMP registry. However, there were only 3 small sections defining the TWAMP registry.

My spin on this is that, all things considered equal, since it is likely that there would be consumers of a OWAMP registry other than ipsec, having a separate OWAMP registry document would keep the ipsec document more concise as well as make an owamp registry document concise. A downside is how long this might slow draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec and what impacts slowing the draft would have, but I’m hoping this wouldn’t be an issue.

So, Spencer, what you propose makes sense in my opinion.

Finally, I’m interested in Brian Trammell’s concurrence (or not).

Thanks,

Bill Cerveny

> On Apr 8, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Al,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:45 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>]
> > Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); The IESG; [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> So, what I was asking unclearly, was if creating a registry NOW is OK with the working group ...
> 
> - Al makes the IPsec draft normatively dependent on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00>.  That could reasonably clear Brian Haberman's Discuss (or not, do the right thing).
> 
> - The chairs do whatever IPPM normal practice is, to adopt the registry draft as a working group item, determine that IPPM has consensus for the draft, and request publication on the registry draft.
> 
> - The IPsec draft needs four more positions, so I'm not seeing a strong reason to yank it off this week's telechat agenda. It can sit in REF-HOLD until the registry draft is ready to publish.
> 
> That will slow the IPsec draft down, but if this text belongs in the registry draft and not in the IPec draft, that's what needs to happen, I believe.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> _______________________________________________
> ippm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:20:00 -0400

Hi Bill,
RFC 5618 IANA section is quite short because we only
asked to establish the TWAMP-Modes Registry. Later, we
needed a Command Number Registry too.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00
does both for OWAMP.

Hi Spencer,
you wrote:
- Al makes the IPsec draft normatively dependent on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00.
That could reasonably clear Brian Haberman's Discuss (or not, do the right thing).

I think that’s the right thing, but I should have clarified that
I’m not a co-author of the TWAMP-IPSEC draft (and they’ll have to
edit if they agree). I was just trying to help.

Al

From: Bill Cerveny [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 1:10 PM
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); [email-masked]; The IESG; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ippm] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-09: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Spencer,

Thanks,

Bill Cerveny

On Apr 8, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi, Al,

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:45 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

> From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>]
> Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); The IESG; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
...

- Al makes the IPsec draft normatively dependent on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-owamp-registry-00.  That could reasonably clear Brian Haberman's Discuss (or not, do the right thing).

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

Spencer
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm