[Ace] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

And as the shepherd write-up is now corrected, I have cleared my DISCUSS.

Thanks again, Dan, for addressing my COMMENTs.

Regards

-éric

From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 11 December 2024 at 12:26
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Dan, thank you for your reply and addressing my comments: your modifications are good.

So, let’s wait until the shepherd’s write-up is updated, then I am clearing my DISCUSS

Regards

-éric

From: Dan Garcia Carrillo <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 11 December 2024 at 11:38
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Eric,

Thank you for the review and comments,

Please see answers inline.


El 21/11/24 a las 8:53, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker escribió:

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11: 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 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbV4wQ_-p$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbV4wQ_-p$>

for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.





The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbRbcVXsJ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbRbcVXsJ$>







----------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSS:

----------------------------------------------------------------------





# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11



Thank you for the work put into this document. I like the idea of using EAP to

authenticate and secure CoAP.


Authors > Thank you for the feedback.



Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address by the

shepherd), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated

even if only for my own education), and some nits.



Thanks to Loganaden Velvindron for the shepherd's detailed write-up including

the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status. It is

also to vague, hence a DISCUSS ballot.



Other thanks to Eliot Lear, the IoT directorate reviewer (at my request),

please consider this int-dir review:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11-iotdir-telechat-lear-2024-10-19/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbTG2s6sd$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11-iotdir-telechat-lear-2024-10-19/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbTG2s6sd$>

and a previous early review

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-08-iotdir-early-lear-2023-07-05/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbaGk9Uad$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-08-iotdir-early-lear-2023-07-05/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbaGk9Uad$>

Glad to read the follow-up email discussions with Eliot and the authors.



I hope that this review helps to improve the document,



Regards,



-éric



# DISCUSS (blocking)



As noted in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbUxILwpg$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TZVBHRgLFp62FB9L066Rg1uOAr0aHmrHHnhTt83Cnn0wPOjyV-cPEqyRb-Ke5YxTja0P9YnVbUxILwpg$> , a

DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics:



## Shepherd write-up



There are too many "XXX: check with co-authors' included critical questions

about IPR disclosure and willingness to be cited as authors. I.e., I do no

think that it is up to the IESG to check these points on their own.



I also find that answers to question 1 and 2 as contradicting each others...


Authors > We contacted Loganaden regarding these points.





----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------





# COMMENTS (non-blocking)



## Section 3.1



Where is `Step 0` defined ? I.e., refer to section 3.2.


Authors > Thank you, we added the reference.



The text is too assertive about the use of mDNS & DHCPv6 as these protocols

cannot currently be used for the discovery (i.e., no option is defined for

DHCPv6).


Authors > Thank you for this observation. We change the text to avoid this, and as previously stated this is said to be out of scope.

“There are different methods to discover the IPv6 address of the EAP authenticator or intermediary entity.”





## Section 3.2



Who is `we` ? The authors ? The WG ? The IETF ? Suggest using the passive voice.


Authors > We have rewritten the text using passive voice to avoid this.



## Section 7.1



Is CoAP always over IPv6, i.e., does it always run over 6LO, RFC 7252 seems to

allow CoAP over IPv4 ? Else `CoAP goes on top of UDP/TCP, which provides a

checksum mechanism over its payload` is not correct as UDP over IPv4 can have

no check-sum.


Authors > Thank you for the comments.


It is worth noting that the PANA protocol [RFC 5191] and PCP [RFC7652]  transport EAP on top of UDP and there was no issue in this area, and they do not add any checksum in the protocol. We would relay on lower layers checksums.


In any case, if we use CoAP-EAP, in case of using UDP and IPv4,we would rely on the link-layer checksums. If not available, we would use CoAP-EAP over a reliable transport such as  TCP or Websockets.

The new text will be as follows:

“Lower layer error detection. EAP relies on lower layer error detection (e.g., CRC, checksum, MIC, etc.). For simplicity, CoAP-EAP delegates error detection to the lower layers, such as the link layer or transport layer (e.g., UDP over IPv6 or TCP).”





# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)



## Use of SVG graphics



Please consider using the aasvg tool to have nice graphics ;-)




Authors > Sure, the next version we will add SVG. Thank you for the suggestion.





--

Dan García Carrillo



---------------------

Departamento de Informática, Área de Telemática, Universidad de Oviedo

2.7.8 - Escuela Politécnica de Ingeniería, 33204, Campus de Viesques, Gijón

Tel.: [phone] (Ext. 2654) | email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>