Re: [Dtls-iot] Version -14 Submitted

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 17/08/15 20:18, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I plan to check over the diff and assuming all's well (which I
> do assume) start IETF LC unless the DICE chairs tell me to hold
> off for some reason.

Checking done, a few nits below but I've asked for IETF last call.
Please fix these before IESG evaluation (I don't mind if you do
'em now or later on).

Cheers,
S.


- 4.1.1.2 s/Figure 4 and Figure 4/Figure 4 and Figure 5/ I guess

- 6.1 s/has to be know./has to be known./

- 6.1 maybe some quotes would help here, i.e.

OLD: We call the above-listed information device credentials
NEW: We call the above-listed information "device credentials,"

- 6.1 s/are often called 'root of trust'/are often called a
       'root of trust'/

- 6.1 s/these initial device credential/these initial device
        credentials/

- 6.1 nicely says "it MUST be ensured that a different key pair"
I think that'd be better if you said "different secret key
materials" as then that'd also cover the pre-shared key case.
(I don't think there are cases where we want to recommend
the same secrets be on many devices and those be used with
TLS.)

- 6.2 s/shorted authentication tag/shorter authentication tag/

- 14: one of the changes doesn't read correctly, I think you're
saying the right thing but the surrounding text results in
oddness, maybe

OLD:

   Since many IoT devices do not have access to an
   accurate clock, it is RECOMMENDED to place a sequence of random bytes
   in the two components of the 'Random' structure when creating a
   ClientHello or ServerHello message and not to assume a structure when
   receiving these payloads.

NEW:

   However this structure is being deprecated for privacy reasons so
   it is RECOMMENDED to place a sequence of random bytes
   in the two components of the 'Random' structure when creating a
   ClientHello or ServerHello message and not to assume a structure when
   receiving these payloads.

But I'm not sure if my NEW suggestion there is quite right either.

- ID nits whines [1] about a few things, please check those out.

[1]
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dice-profile-14.txt


> 
> Thanks for the good discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> On 17/08/15 19:47, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I had a chat with Stephen today and we went through all the issues as
>> recorded in the issue tracker.
>>
>> Stephen had a few remarks but was in general happy with the feedback
>> from DICE and CFRG.
>>
>> As a result, I have published version -14 with the proposed text (as
>> recorded in each individual issue at the WG tracker).
>>
>> I closed the issues in the tracker but you can still see them here:
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dice/trac/report/6
>>
>> Please have a look at the updated document. As you can see, there are
>> various changes in the document:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dice-profile-14.txt
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtls-iot mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtls-iot
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtls-iot mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtls-iot
>