Re: [Anima-signaling] Comments needed: issues in draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A54129431 for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:52:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gr7moR-ek2ci for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x230.google.com (mail-pf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CED211279EB for <anima-signaling@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id w189so27726885pfb.0 for <anima-signaling@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:52:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=btvYjrVHEuYi+QScmMD4iX1mgtjM+SqMlTTZceIQ25A=; b=bFRvfmGZyiNJkgwLNrCAJGYWxzsD9r3qnmxXrY0I5WCY9gXuqJ/UaaXktswoR472iO n39DAFozEIdCymdtXntHrLhQu0RQfXwkPZYYxQtuj9XMYXaqPjPlXp/+29+AdVZtJFQt vNmb5F6+XdDTrbgL029+wlVzO87aR5s7DXNEKwSf4fSuL6bPI1r6ftqiqlZGOa8UASc7 eif9gtPyrSuDXV2bHTqp9xCFDlse42Ty62IH7WxpKq/vbwyJGZ2UU8KfpWIFGI8kdkl1 +7gD+q3c2ShqlhlWZvYeFBKM8ngr15Lglyfz0hfBXsxuFFLyLiK0n2FugtcFsqf/Mjas //ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=btvYjrVHEuYi+QScmMD4iX1mgtjM+SqMlTTZceIQ25A=; b=oRBwX1ddQ/93pA89e4Tx7ZgIEcE4yFCTAKuK0im+pyPqDwnOxnT96nBCwS7ygp6pg2 ePAqk80EFq0ZXsm09FDPDAEnIKMf1BnLuci+1koXplXpIeT8SLM+K7Qq9YZrgfB/kYbB 9Sf1HH8rQyJyFr0nJEK1MNSJuY1IcBYNY19tSwk0NWow+c3JIg2R7gB30EY1Vm25nEvw Tojq2ttfLf785ebSZikbpkdMunkW25oX4drlhrCY02p0A1i6mMLmKH/xTiOeIlRasVge L9ptob6zQlc+E+s1y/mJ4saXn3s2rM8T8+ThRJKfUEEktGywCFQCfBiTNKeiQt7leavh P/Dw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kFg+VDtEsaCfp0dV2BmepRcre5DJAobfOfjE2o9OhX3hE156hA2X6GZIwknwXwFw==
X-Received: by 10.99.177.6 with SMTP id r6mr353924pgf.61.1488505952186; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] ([118.149.111.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s13sm12860254pfd.46.2017.03.02.17.52.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:52:31 -0800 (PST)
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Anima signaling DT <anima-signaling@ietf.org>
References: <eaec437b-db19-a0a5-3190-21b9a457d16d@gmail.com> <15000.1488464147@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <75ea9399-adea-0b15-de4f-0d4263240e14@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 14:52:36 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <15000.1488464147@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-signaling/kEuRiDWQjvS-PjsZHhbcFMBMLlI>
Subject: Re: [Anima-signaling] Comments needed: issues in draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09
X-BeenThere: anima-signaling@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the signaling design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-signaling.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-signaling/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-signaling@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 01:52:33 -0000

On 03/03/2017 03:15, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > - Split the document? [Charlie Perkins]
> 
>     > "parts of the document seem more philosophical than
>     > prescriptive... It should be considered to break the document
>     > into a Requirements document and a more rigorously defined
>     > protocol solution document."
> 
>     > Proposed resolution: writing a separate requirements document
>     > was essentially excluded when the WG was chartered. Unless the
>     > WG and AD want to backtrack on that, the proposed resolution
>     > is to *not* do this. Of course, all the specific review comments
>     > about non-rigorous text will be actioned.
> 
> Mark the parts of the document which are requirements.
> not having seperate documents doesn't mean that we can't be clear.

It's already a separate and suitably titled section. I think we're fine.

> 
>     > - Clarify security [Charlie Perkins]
> 
>     > "In some
>     > places, ACP seems to be mandated, and in other places that is relaxed
>     > to mean "a sufficient security mechanism".  It would be better to
>     > identify the security requirements, and put them unmistakably in the
>     > Security Considerations section, which deserves to have teeth."
> 
>     > (and various detailed comments in the text)
> 
>     > Of course we will deal with the detailed comments. The larger
>     > issue is whether we should move most of the security discussion
>     > to the Security Considerations section.
> 
>     > Proposed resolution: *Waiting for WG Chair and AD guidance.*
> 
> I think I already expressed my opinion:  "must be secured by ACP".
> I would like no other exceptions or allusions to DTLS, etc.

I'm not convinced we have WG consensus for that. I think that when
we've tightened up the text in several ways suggested by Charlie,
at least the intention will be clear.

> 
>     > - Text on circular dependencies [Joel Halpern]
> 
> ...
>     > Proposed resolution: We should be more explicit that this is a complex
>     > issue that is simply not handled by the GRASP layer and that must be
>     > considered by ASA designers.
> 
> +1
> 
>     > Proposed resolution: No change.
> 
>     > "3.8.13.  No Operation Message
> 
>     > In fragmentary CDDL, a No Operation message follows the pattern:
> 
>     > noop-message = [M_NOOP]
> 
>     > This message MAY be sent by an implementation that for practical
>     > reasons needs to activate a socket.  It MUST be silently ignored by a
>     > recipient.
> 
>     > CEP: ?? what does it mean to "activate" a socket?  Is there something
>     > about
>     > how long a socket may remain open but not used?"
> 
>     > Not that I know of. But I discovered that to find out the port number
>     > assigned to a socket, you pretty much have to perform sendto() and
>     > getsockname(), so the ability to send a no-op during initialisation
>     > seemed reasonable. I could have just sent a zero, but a well-defined
>     > message seemed better.
> 
> Also, we may need traffic to keep ACP links alive, or discovery that they are
> in fact dead.  Or just for debugging.  It just seems useful to have to me.

Yes. It only got added because I needed to send one to make my code work ;-).

   Brian