[babel] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-02

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 07 January 2019 05:17 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBEE128CF3; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 21:17:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 z50C1QCdtAYr; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 21:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x136.google.com (mail-it1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (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 E78021274D0; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 21:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x136.google.com with SMTP id m62so8989466ith.5; Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:17:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zB3a4eQrtGCYfIqP5jHiBsoXm/aKbMJ5GbU4aJt+H4A=; b=ELp5z7OliVuwVmeHtSCh/frbSwicnXQkePhgvVPxzIukiT7FrrjN3G1Ih69NUa3oas KDFrksbpT7RowRYptet75iPcxxVyPdBfyb85yoPspFyohXko7HRCGcxC1j848Y0ZhQ16 T7BOxSI4wvEyzXZdqiGCF3ez7cEeDJa3JpkTZEvtINb+pXqUHgditI4eK/mmxOGehuBG Pc+A1s2jfBJJEf3YLTvRkluL8lmvN4Wxkv0ni1hj05Vp8LPHEmGSENg/TCnktntEiwwe 409bpcOXyIQf6yZOghaKjzcHL+UwoQIi5VASElzPT1YcFlbMrtTa31PQwWm9XjX9y6fG nT+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zB3a4eQrtGCYfIqP5jHiBsoXm/aKbMJ5GbU4aJt+H4A=; b=bGD/XnIBrV5Mm2iTBDlgIYyNi1OYGuX8RqaHufGTQTPH2Zba2eHCUvEMb7rqtS10AJ sY6vYN3/KsddC1xDky8e+adpiEHDLFeatL4ynxWuUUP7gLAZI3gGJyi0nXdkGDPZCq8n hRwKHZmJY9AuXZbx2FPc6ACymrktaO21/lK0YfyvjDcKX/48YyUIEtNVInjMAWGmx3/4 q3xb6auF9Yn/mSd+AscZ+8varPePf/8982Tj26ki/4SVq+KbJKW8UVumfrQi7MFtklvL zkzqZqyaBNEICClD8WEXcCLF9d/xNzk/F0Me3PnJ96PitfWoHymZmD0FzHbcp3y2KyMU aD+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcjH8lPgB1CMQqi25pZON3Z3SJGTy0mgQPOETBw7GjlpKbFrGyf Rh92IXUPpdmX3JXz+IW+aVJcTnkfVmrKDKV3mJxtnBDYEK0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN51CWg/6lqHdaSprM1CVGhG661eCupaXkZrtuSlkWylHqxfoshD8UZCkwEMEhM8euBDxr0PvMPfEROSQms8tG0=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:89:: with SMTP id 131mr6039258ita.105.1546838267873; Sun, 06 Jan 2019 21:17:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 00:17:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHA+PbDO2b=LED8exYf1Gf91-7KyxLCX+R0Dp4kNF4O9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-babel-dtls@ietf.org, babel-chairs <babel-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/AzjslHG1bVLksmXMs62gLDqeN_M>
Subject: [babel] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-02
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 05:17:51 -0000

Hi,

Here are some comments on the draft:

Abstract and Introduction: Replace "describes" with "specifies".

Section 2.1, top of page 4, says "When a node receives a new DTLS
connection, it MUST verify the source IP address, and reject the
connection if the address is not an IPv6 link-local address." Would it
be correct to replace this with "When a node receives a new DTLS
connection, it MUST verify that the source IP address is an IPv6
link-local address; if it is not, it MUST reject the connection." or
is there some other sort of verification it must do?

Last paragraph of Section 2.3: I'm not sure about "unprotected
implementation of Babel". Maybe "Babel implementation without DTLS
support". Also, the reference to replacing "TLV"s seems odd. Can't
there be multiple TLVs in a message? Maybe "replacing any multicast
Babel routing protocol message with unicast transmission of the
message to each known neighbor except that neighbor discovery Hello
TLVs MUST still be multicast." or something like that.

IANA Considerations: As are probably aware, Section 8.1.1 of RFC 6335
is about applying for port numbers (and service names, which would, as
you say, be "babel-dtls" in this case). A completed application
template could be included as an appendix, though that is not
necessary.

Security Considerations, first sentence: Maybe "The interaction" ->
"Confidential interaction".

Security Considerations and rfc6126bis seem to say that Babel can run
over IPv4 but the last paragraph of Section 2.1 seems to be limited to
IPv6.

I'm not sure why Performance Considerations is an Appendix rather than
a section of the main text. But I guess it's OK either way.

Minor wording suggestions, adopt or ignore as you choose:

Abstract and Introduction: in the first line, insert "base" before
"Babel Routing Protocol".

Section 1.2: Delete "very".

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com