[dtn] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: (with COMMENT)
Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 19 February 2020 15:36 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13DA120122; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:36:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4@ietf.org, Edward Birrane <edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu>, dtn-chairs@ietf.org, edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu, dtn@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.118.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Message-ID: <158212659797.17775.13591249415088938667.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 07:36:37 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/HCdehux9rOzAILH3tj-jX9MO05o>
Subject: [dtn] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:36:38 -0000
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for this well written document. It was a pleasure to read! I agree with Suresh, text about TLS 1.2 compatibility looks dodgy. I also have some comments I would really like to see replies to: The document never states byte order for 16/32/64 bit fields. As you are not using CBOR (or any other format), this can't be presumed to be known. 4.7. Session Parameter Negotiation Enable TLS: Negotiation of the Enable TLS parameter is performed by taking the logical AND of the two contact headers' CAN_TLS flags. A local security policy is then applied to determine of the negotiated value of Enable TLS is acceptable. It can be a reasonable security policy to both require or disallow the use of TLS depending upon the desired network flows. Because this state is negotiated over an unsecured medium, there is a risk of a TLS Stripping as described in Section 8. If the Enable TLS state is unacceptable, the node SHALL terminate the session with a reason code of "Contact Failure". Note that this contact failure reason is different than a failure of TLS handshake or TLS authentication after an agreed-upon and acceptable Enable TLS state. If the negotiated Enable TLS value is true and acceptable then TLS negotiation feature (described in Section 4.4) begins immediately following the contact header exchange. While this text is not wrong, I think it is in a wrong section. The rest of Section 4.7 talks about SESS_INIT message, while the TLS flag was sent in Contact Header and was already negotiated by this point. 9.1. Port Number Within the port registry of [IANA-PORTS], TCP port number 4556 has been previously assigned as the default port for the TCP convergence layer in [RFC7242]. This assignment is unchanged by TCPCL version 4, but the assignment reference is updated to this specification. Each TCPCL entity identifies its TCPCL protocol version in its initial contact (see Section 9.2), so there is no ambiguity about what protocol is being used. The related assignments for UDP and DCCP port 4556 (both registered by [RFC7122]) are unchanged. +------------------------+----------------------------+ | Parameter | Value | +------------------------+----------------------------+ | Service Name: | dtn-bundle | | | | | Transport Protocol(s): | TCP | Is there another document that will define use over DCCP? 9.6. XFER_REFUSE Reason Codes 9.7. SESS_TERM Reason Codes In both of these sections: I don't think the document say anywhere how recipients of unrecognized reason codes should handle them. I think the document should say that they must be treated as "Unknown".
- [dtn] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-iet… Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker
- Re: [dtn] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft… Brian Sipos