Re: [DMM] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-04
Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de> Sun, 03 November 2019 13:48 UTC
Return-Path: <ott@in.tum.de>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8411200EC; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 05:48:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3cPaPN1xKdCa; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 05:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out2.in.tum.de [131.159.0.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07DF3120089; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 05:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id 4C7C81C0403; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:48:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: (Authenticated sender: ott) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F0841C03FD; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:48:35 +0100 (CET) (Extended-Queue-bit tech_dnhcj@fff.in.tum.de)
To: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, Joerg Ott <jo@acm.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif.all@ietf.org, tsv-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, dmm <dmm@ietf.org>
References: <157108615425.24656.12786623966649135975@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALypLp-sHu4-GM6MqCHwGAGhkp8Bb-0GcTQeB=VMO8yiCi6Z1g@mail.gmail.com> <CALypLp9WtOSCH-jiWsV_SDedicsoqS_-a2MUWXzwOCN5hG22zQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Message-ID: <33569fa4-6bfb-782c-d6a5-2f25b7a4fced@in.tum.de>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 14:48:35 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALypLp9WtOSCH-jiWsV_SDedicsoqS_-a2MUWXzwOCN5hG22zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/ZWlSlS_fQDzrd9SW2MeG8K0ML_M>
Subject: Re: [DMM] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-04
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 13:48:46 -0000
Hi Carlos, thanks much, will review shortly, but this will take about a week and a bit. Best, Jörg On 02.11.19 12:45, CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO wrote: > Hi Joerg, > > We've just posted a new revision addressing your comments. > > Thanks, > > Carlos > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 1:24 PM CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO > <cjbc@it.uc3m.es <mailto:cjbc@it.uc3m.es>> wrote: > > Thanks a lot Joerg for your very comprehensive review. > > We will carefully look at your comments and provide responses (with > proposals of text changes) in the next few days. I prefer to take > some time to properly address all your points. > > Thanks! > > Carlos > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:49 PM Joerg Ott via Datatracker > <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joerg Ott > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Hi, > > this document has been reviewed as part of the transport area > review team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were > written > primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to > the document's > authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and > also to the IETF > discussion list for information. > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should > consider this > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please > always CC > tsv-art@ietf.org <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org> if you reply to or > forward this review. > > The draft defines extensions to Proxy Mobile IPv6 to support a > more distributed > variant of mobility management. In essence, as a mobile node > moves from one > point of attachment (Mobility Anchor and Access Router, MAAR) to > the next, > its routing prefix with the previous MAAR(s) remain(s) and > ongoing transport > layer connections remain active and routed indirectly via the > previous MAAR, > while new ones will use the present MAAR. The interactions of > MAARs are > managed via a Central Mobility Database (CMD). > > The draft is well written and good to follow, describing the > protocols and > extensions clearly. I just have two transport-specific concern > and two general > operational issues that require further clarification in the draft. > > The transport issues: > > T1. Section 3.2. When the CMD acts as a relay for Proxy Binding > Updates (PBUs) > and Proxy Binding Acts (PBAs), the CMD may act as a relay of a > single PBU to > multiple previous MAARs. If multiple previous MAARs exist, say > k, (and there > may be numerous in case of many fast handovers, e.g., with > vehicular networks), > the CMD creates k outgoing packets from a single incoming > packet. This bears > a certain amplification risk (which may also need to be > addressed in the security > considerations section) but it also may lead to packet bursts > originated from the > CMD, albeit to different targets. Other protocols start > introducing pacing to avoid > bursts on the outgoing link, even if the packets do take > different paths in the end. > This may be worthwhile considering. > > T2. Also in section 3.2, when relaying PBAs, the CMD serves as a > transport or > application endpoint and should have a way to deal with missing > responses > (after all, this is a connectionless protocol on top of an > unreliable Internet). > A timeout is only mentioned for aggregation, but even there > there the timeout > is not specified, nor is a reference to, e.g., RFC 5213 or so to > infer a timeout > used elsewhere. > > General issues: > > G1. Section 3.2 (again) specifies that responses are aggregated > on p.10. How > does response aggregation work? How is error handling done? > > Moreover, also on p.10, further below the draft states that if a > timer expires, > the requests already received are forwarded. The missing ones > come later. > This seems to contradict aggregation because the originator (the > currently > server MAAR) does not expect more than a single response if it > sent out a > single update. This may thus require updated processing in the MAAR. > > G2. Sect. 3.3 suggests that PBAs could be sent straight from the > previous MAAR > to the current MAAR. How does this work if security associations > are supposed > to be applied? It would seem that, when following the security > considerations, > such cases are not covered. At least, this would warrant further > explanation as > in this case we suddenly have three involved security > associations, which would > also need to be established. > > G3. Sect 3.5 discusses deregistration and suggests that this can > only be done by > timeout; I understand the rationale but can any risks arise on > continued resource > consumption (DoS attacks)? > > G4. Sect. 6.: As alluded to above, the security considerations > may need expanding. > > Nits: > p.12: "information are" -> "information is" > p.12: "influence on" -> "influence" > > > > -- > Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution": > https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g > > > > -- > Special Issue "Beyond 5G Evolution": > https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/special_issues/beyond_5g > > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art >
- [DMM] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-p… Joerg Ott via Datatracker
- Re: [DMM] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-d… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [DMM] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-d… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [DMM] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of dr… Joerg Ott
- Re: [DMM] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of dr… Joerg Ott