Re: [DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)

Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl> Mon, 11 January 2021 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3303A0FB5; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:48:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 iGQnHgR7rslz; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [116.202.65.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 346AA3A0FB2; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD7B601F0; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 15:48:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.142]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1610380126; bh=tJ4Ns6ixxaT9VltVlOW8P8dZEblA6oFGXlIIpSBsLGE=; h=To:Cc:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=NUsj10jq2qb4Tthyg9cQ9nZXK0rP++Nkm5tAw0g9hD9RtfGw7W+iCIT17yE+Tarb1 tn2Aen/Fwq0KetS3bGUqRswYkNLEAZJi9KIoJSnTbf0h/prTmsx4ksP9rsO9LOx5XD WjOUTZNflp0qiae9JhzmJeuz6fRiTk2yU1Vz/SUysb7QZsUyvmBqmQnnAlQsMDD+mZ TmZcnb8d4op+xA368IlgCyehz1LzdhUu5eZC5JKa4SoLFcMn5622NYGoIfwXr1VhCi EVQCXLQFihFMCJ/7oxr2YwLeKRlCayRYrJ+EKwOv0rvRZUU4WRWR8tauAC9JxDsfmj HZs+mk6l52plQ==
To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
References: <160810031327.27689.1721755657441573369@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <e5cced5b-197b-7026-4ad8-65474a999476@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:48:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <160810031327.27689.1721755657441573369@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0XnciKFTgw6BNLieSs415z9J9Xw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 15:48:52 -0000

Thank you Murray for your review,

Op 16-12-2020 om 07:31 schreef Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In Section 3 there's a line that says "Client-Cookie = 64 bits of entropy"
> which is both (a) not a sentence, and (b) the same as something said in the
> first paragraph of this section.  I think it can be removed.

It is an ascii-art showing how the value of the Client Cookie is
determined, similar to how there is an ascii-art for the Hash value in
the Server Cookie in section 4.4.

> Also in Section 7, you're creating a registry with Expert Review, but there's
> no particular guidance offered to the Designated Expert once one is assigned,
> as suggested by RFC 8126.  Are we all OK with that?  You might advise, for
> example, that the registration of a new Method really should have a
> specification someplace.

The revised document (posted soon) does have more text on the
requirements for the pseudorandom function (though not in Section 7
itself). Also, we don't really expect a new algorithm anytime soon.

Your other comments have been addressed in the revised document.

Cheers,
-- Willem

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>