IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt

"Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 19 May 2011 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E345E0759 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 pDNsnyOcaa8F for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7658CE06B3 for <dime@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p4JJCDJn009207 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p4JJC577010115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:13 -0500
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.124]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:12 -0500
From: "Cakulev, Violeta (Violeta)" <violeta.cakulev@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:11 -0500
Thread-Topic: AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt
Thread-Index: AcwLM6OwJj1j0g4PTJOYEHBonlWjAgLJK/Fw
Message-ID: <AAE76B481E7A0E4C96610790A852B9A625098D6C31@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040310F178@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A040310F178@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11
Subject: Re: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 19:12:19 -0000

Dan,
Thanks for the comments please see inline [VC].

Thanks,
-Violeta

-----Original Message-----
From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:50 AM
To: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] AD-review of draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt



Hi,

Please find below the AD review of
draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-05.txt. While the document is in pretty good shape, there are a few key technical and editorial issues that need to be addressed before we can send the document to IETF Last Call.

See below. Technical requirements are marked Tx and Editorial requirements are marked Ex.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan


T1. In the Abstract section I find the following:

> This document therefore extends
   the functionality offered by [RFC 5778] with pre-shared key based
   authentication offered by IKEv2 when no EAP is used.

Would not this imply that the document should have the note 'Updates RFC
5779 - when approved' in the header?
[VC] This is a good point. This wording indeed implies that the document is actually updating RFC 5778 and that is not the case. We changed the wording in v6.

T2. In any case it seems to me that RFC 5778 should rather be a Normative Reference rather than an Informative reference.
[VC] I looked into this carefully a while back. This document is specifying new Diameter application, AVPs etc. in other words nothing from RFC 5778 is being reused. I don't think that RFC 5778 must be read to understand or implement the technology in this document. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness I think it is worth referencing it.



E1. [RFC5778] is the correct label for the reference and not [RFC 5778]

E2. In Section 1 s/IKEv2 protocol allows/The IKEv2 protocol allows/

E3. Expand HAAA at the first occurrence which is in Section 1

E4. Section 4.2 - s/IKE_SA correspond/IKE_SA corresponds/

E5. Section 9 IANA Considerations needs a serious re-write. The first paragraph should not use verbs at past time as we are describing here codes and values defined in this specification. All the other sections need to be explicit about what allocations are required from IANA. For example it would be good to use the format 'IANA is required to allocate the following AVP Codes: IKEv2 Nonces - TBD5, Ni - TBD5, etc.'
[VC] v6 addresses all of the above.


_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email