Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: (with COMMENT)

Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 08:18 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20150725140840.20611.18415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150725140840.20611.18415.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:18:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CADrU+dK44Gze4k5LKDK-_8HT2n-_=WMOMczk_XyPYOYGybyq2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133d004128cd3051beb1fe6"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/YmUjsb4_f2udEfxRaiLe2mG5eLs>
Cc: roll-chairs@ietf.org, "roll@ietf.org WG" <roll@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.ad@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building@ietf.org, Yvonne-Anne Pignolet <yvonneanne.pignolet@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>

Hi Stephen,

Please see inline for specific responses.

Regarding the old comments: We have tried to respond to these issues in
previous follow up e-mails and modify the document in accordance with the
responses. Repeating these old comments suggests that neither those
responses nor the updated text have been read yet. Please can you read the
responses and updated text before simply repeating these comments?
Otherwise I can't see how we can make any progress on this.

Robert

On 25 July 2015 at 15:08, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-12: No Objection
>
> 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 https://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:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Thanks for the discussion about security. I didn't check
> if the comments below were handled in -12, happy to
> chat about that if you want.
>
> First two comments are about text that's new in -11:
>
> - 4.1.8: "MUST be present" is ambiguous - do you mean
> it must be used? I think you do.
>

<RCC>This has been changed to "MUST be used on all nodes" in -12</RCC>

>
> - 4.1.8: "MUST be distributed or established in a
> secure fashion" isn't really a protocol requirement.
> Do you really just mean "see 4.1.8.1" ?
>

<RCC>As mentioned before, this is just introductory. I suggest removing the
sentence to close the comment.</RCC>

[Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ie… Stephen Farrell
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… peter van der Stok
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Robert Cragie
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… peter van der Stok
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Stephen Farrell
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Robert Cragie
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Ines Robles
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Stephen Farrell
Re: [Roll] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Robert Cragie