Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with COMMENT)
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 31 May 2017 23:18 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E23E127333; Wed, 31 May 2017 16:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 kohbMrJ10COl; Wed, 31 May 2017 16:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::232]) (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 305BB1271DF; Wed, 31 May 2017 16:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id e193so20321507pfh.0; Wed, 31 May 2017 16:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OiW3woHgxOvxCGKYzjkm7oOj4iUk553bUFlvVlKKoBA=; b=bV6NxH5trk5I5jF2Bo13Xsfj4fTgmihsijoV+pcLR6DS/47LK3axpoBaG9Tk2lv6DK 2Zz7YKn1odbNR4rJJ/Q9rQW24wpjv2o302p56S4611In5+L0DhXobgUspOGXGDAcyLGX 1zi4Wv2pV9PEU5Lv05KbYKdciGxzy6Zwp4iQLEK9KwkqjlNUYoIPXN40cGUfoTtUCLUx bWH05/ACkkUZU/aQhS+16+q06MlHm4OdUgR0EzQLSvo8kLkSEslPgc/3pGQeYqvjs8w/ LeE8VL5eVpxo5c4VkLj4xBKq0PhG14pyj2oAPcZS0/Effdyfzo85muhfLnWQ5tW2ADfo l2mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OiW3woHgxOvxCGKYzjkm7oOj4iUk553bUFlvVlKKoBA=; b=bN7PFzolJfhvTQpHmMll5TMcDqcDdi5hcsrkBlegmhb/I9UGwQtToX3vqvtOgA5oSl qh4KK1NcZPwjD7M5ufTLiIfD2z4x5whCNcZ1vfupHk57/tdcziFipSKW70fifoAZHNYd iCfSlRUym7qogmBaCpjqSe6twninjtLXJK4i607os2ruWXoy1JQosw0zuZVOA2bj21BA +W8oa98mECIXrzUNVk8Bx7EXXgptM0dpzIJm7z+2zgQaJ6F15yST9WoS2NIEiGgK8oHk CEPaOjEGWYT6/6BAy+Vzy5VSfrKOjfsoZisPTL4iZLRjmym1w4kUqe/0Ozs2jclWUVPK JusQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDXJvEdxKa3NvibCK3Xo+GmnXgV00dxkCTHuGLRfCPLYoUS6XQ8 8v1uFSNDvUX+zTE0
X-Received: by 10.84.193.3 with SMTP id e3mr8406254pld.178.1496272680434; Wed, 31 May 2017 16:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e001:5618:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e001:5618:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j82sm31833767pfj.69.2017.05.31.16.17.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 31 May 2017 16:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-anima-grasp@ietf.org, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
References: <149550272234.507.6666100470577050600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5905c0d9-f664-1207-aa28-d4d45d5d8528@gmail.com> <1D91D354-0A23-471F-A854-7256D8D2BA52@nostrum.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <77e6c45d-bdbf-2823-5432-1a1388003d36@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:18:00 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1D91D354-0A23-471F-A854-7256D8D2BA52@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/D7x5Rf1wXFrQXCa6tlFuiq8MGcs>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 23:18:02 -0000
On 01/06/2017 08:36, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi, thanks for the responses. Further comments below. I deleted sections that seem resolved. > > Thanks! > > Ben. > >> On May 28, 2017, at 11:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Comments on some more of Ben's comments: >> >> On 23/05/2017 13:25, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> > > […] > >>> -5, Privacy and Confidentiality: Did people consider IP Addresses and >>> other potentially persistent identifiers as impacting privacy? >> >> Here we are dealing with the addresses of network elements, not user >> devices, so there don't seem to to be personal privacy issues. >> > > Did I miss something that indicated that these network elements can’t/won’t ever be end-user devices? > > Now, I don’t necessarily think that would change the privacy considerations—I was mainly questioning the assertion the “ no personal information” assertion. No, I don't think you missed anything, because we can't reasonably assert that. People can install what they want where they want. We will qualify the text accordingly; it only strengthens the case for encryption. >>> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you >>> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required? >> >> I have asked the WG's opinion. > > Okay, I will follow that separately. > >> >>> Editorial: >>> >>> - Is section 2 expected to be useful to implementers once this is >>> published as an RFC? Unless there's a reason otherwise, I would suggest >>> moving this to an appendix, or even removing it entirely. As it is, you >>> have to wade through an unusual amount of front material before you get >>> to the meat of the protocol. >> >> I have asked the WG's opinion. > > Okay. > >> >>> - Along the lines of the previous comment, I found the organization a bit >>> hard to follow. I didn't find actual protocol details until around page >>> 21. Procedures are split (and sometimes repeated) between the procedure >>> sections and the message format sections. I think that will make this >>> more difficult and error prone than necessary for implementors to read >>> and reference. I fear readers will read one section and think they >>> understand the procedures, and miss a requirement in the other. >> >> I understand the problem but I don't have a solution; there is an attempt >> to give an overview before getting into message formats, but that leads >> to some repetition as well. > > On reflection, it’s probably not worth trying to reorganize things this late in the process. Other reviewers seem to have followed things just fine, so maybe it’s me :-) No, it's complicated. I have exactly the same problem - both in updating the draft and in chasing bugs through the prototype code. I just don't think it can be fixed by reorganising the text, because to some extent you have to understand everything before you can understand anything. Thanks Brian
- [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Ben Campbell
- [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question … Brian E Carpenter
- [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's quest… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's quest… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's quest… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's quest… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's quest… Brian E Carpenter