Re: [CGA-EXT] Comments on draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob-01.txt

Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com> Fri, 09 October 2009 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDE428C13A for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T13Bp5lcXa05 for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f202.google.com (mail-iw0-f202.google.com [209.85.223.202]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FCF3A68C0 for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so3896066iwn.32 for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kXYHQxrKaMyQ/UlloZqxFW1vBb+/2jZUtlS0M9CTg5A=; b=nMMFd8iq6GbDVkZ0u3yQeV7iT/94tJdDYMOhVp30KjiHjNRBixV7kJ8+rffN8CZl88 IYb0RJltNlFLfH6iDPTBamlyjRIy09fyoqdtvSdCFWfxOAfKEJWghZr33CLfgp2Qn0WC HbEOLJqBiTevyZmoNkp8PlZp3AWTWRqV1UPXg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nqT2NZSPlq66jWnM9dE3rcO+yJQMls9ulRkglk4+3a6p+ILUKz5TIVuXeyJTgXXt13 snmRQpao5F9XxDmv70km8Vx8uyO4ZsSCChikXULAv5n4V39cmcbz6PXsab0xuXY+6iJz w/WSFl1xDMtW+4hHGPlTQKKwM63f5MCnolqQI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.123.75 with SMTP id o11mr5331957ibr.55.1255101298460; Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903271652050.6788@whitebox>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903271652050.6788@whitebox>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:14:58 +0200
Message-ID: <729b68be0910090814g1df7839doe2a1b20e4635c367@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
To: Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: cga-ext@ietf.org, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh.Krishnan@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [CGA-EXT] Comments on draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob-01.txt
X-BeenThere: cga-ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: CGA and SeND Extensions <cga-ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cga-ext>
List-Post: <mailto:cga-ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:13:20 -0000

Hi Tony,

At first, sorry for the delayed reply and thanks for your comments.

2009/3/27 Tony Cheneau <tony.cheneau@it-sudparis.eu>eu>:
> Hello,
>
> I've read draft-ietf-csi-sndp-prob-01.txt. I think the document is in a good
> shape. Still I have some small questions and comments.
>
> - Figure 3, the box isn't drawn correctly (misaligned dashes)

OK.

>
> - section 3.3:
> Concerning the DAD issue on ND proxy, I think there might be a problem
> too when there is a real collision. The node defending its address will
> send a NA that might go thought the proxy. The proxy may not be
> authorized to modify this NA if it is protected by SEND.
> Does this make sense ? Or will this case never happen ?

IMHO, this case is already include in the previous sections because
DAD NA message is the same as a Solicited NA message.

>
> - section 4.2.5: s/are are/are/

OK.

>
> - section 4.2.6:
>   Movement between segments could be controlled with increasing
>   certificate sequence numbers and timestamps.  The timestamp of the
>   root authority (in this case, the CGA address owner) would be most
>   significant.  Where ties exist, the shortest chain would supercede,
>   as this would indicate a proxy closer to the proxied node.
>
> I don't understand the first sentence. Can you detail ? (Are you referring
> to
> serial numbers ?)

Yes: this is in fact serial numbers. I will modify it.

Thanks again for the comments!

Cheers.

JMC.

>
> Regards,
>        Tony Cheneau
>