Re: [decade] Review of draft-ietf-decade-reqs-08

Konstantinos Pentikousis <k.pentikousis@huawei.com> Mon, 03 September 2012 16:42 UTC

Return-Path: <k.pentikousis@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156EB21F86A2 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WslYyQXrd84Y for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BA021F8685 for <decade@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 09:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJH66976; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:42:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:41:52 +0100
Received: from SZXEML420-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.159) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:42:33 +0100
Received: from szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.98]) by szxeml420-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.159]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 00:42:31 +0800
From: Konstantinos Pentikousis <k.pentikousis@huawei.com>
To: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-decade-reqs-08
Thread-Index: AQHNek8zSOtXNshZRkafaYo+6v08l5ddw0pwgBaNv4CABJpuYA==
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 16:42:30 +0000
Message-ID: <8D38716F0C1A444BA0CD7E96454366C23A4D82BF@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20120813195006.29392.94335.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8D38716F0C1A444BA0CD7E96454366C23A4C5095@szxeml545-mbs.china.huawei.com> <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04A78814@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-Reply-To: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04A78814@SAM.InterDigital.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.37.56]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "decade@ietf.org" <decade@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [decade] Review of draft-ietf-decade-reqs-08
X-BeenThere: decade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "To start the discussion on DECoupled Application Data Enroute, to discuss the in-network data storage for p2p applications and its access protocol" <decade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade>
List-Post: <mailto:decade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:42:41 -0000

Hi Akbar,

  |Thanks, your comments and analysis are always very thought provoking!

Thank you for your kind words.

<snip>

  |In a DECADE system, efficient storage and data transfer of small data
  |objects is required [5.3].
  |
  |[AKBAR] AND WE SHOULD ADD THE PHRASE "... AND DATA TRANSFER OF LARGE
  |DATA OBJECTS IS ALSO INHERENTLY SUPPORTED."

Sure, I guess this goes into the text of [5.3] then.


  |The data transport protocol can be negotiated but must be secure [7.1,
  |7.3].
  |
  |
  |[AKBAR] AND I WOULD ADD TWO MORE POINTS APPLICABLE TO THE NEXT
  |PARAGRAPH:
  |- ALL CONTROL FUNCTIONS ARE ACCOMPLISHED USING THE DECADE RESOURCE
  |PROTOCOL (DRP)

I understand what you have in mind, but it will be a bit strange to put, let me call it, a "forward reference" to a protocol that does not exist. Just my $0.02.


  |Security is based on cryptographic methods which allow a DECADE
  |provider to access system resources, distribute content to content
  |consumers of its choosing, even when offline, using (if needed) fine-
  |grained access control policies [6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 8.2, 8.3].
  |Client data on a server are by default private [6.7]. It is the client
  |that always discovers and initiates a connection to a server [6.8,
  |6.9], not vice versa. Data objects can be written by a provider in one
  |go or several rounds and can be read by multiple consumers
  |simultaneously [7.2, 7.4]. Every provider is given the means to obtain
  |resource usage stats and quotas [10.1]. Overall, attack mitigation is
  |a MUST [9.5] and transport redirection SHOULD be supported [7.7]
  |
  |[AKBAR] IN THE EXPLANATION YOU SWITCH TERMS BETWEEN "PROVIDER" AND
  |"CLIENT".  IT WOULD BE CLEARER I THINK IF YOU STUCK TO JUST "PROVIDER"
  |AND "CONSUMER".

Well, I agree that a few terms in sec 2.* have some overlap and perhaps could be simplified a bit, but I tried to have the cheat sheet summary as close as possible to the definitions in Sec 2.* and the -reqs text. For example, in 6.7 (copy and paste):

REQUIREMENT(S): Unless read or write access is granted by a Provider, the default permission MUST be no access.
RATIONALE: This requirement is to protect client privacy by default. 

I guess that means s/client/provider in the rationale part, and the cheat sheet summary becomes "Provider data on a server are by default private [6.7]"

On the other hand, in the sentence "It is the client... [6.8, 6.9]", "client" (as per sec. 2.1) is the right term, not "provider".

Best regards,

Kostas