Re: [dtn] IPND draft 03 remarks

Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it> Sat, 23 January 2016 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=1830bdb5f1=carlo.caini@unibo.it>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694BA1B29C8 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:22:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.322
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 S6cUlDa5ykkL for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:22:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx02.unibo.it (mx02.unibo.it [137.204.24.59]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72ECA1B29C6 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:22:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 89cc183b-f791c6d00000545c-3c-56a3fd22317f
Received: from mail.unibo.it (e10-hc2-cs.unibo.loc [10.11.1.40]) by mx02.unibo.it (UNIBO) with SMTP id 42.E1.21596.22DF3A65; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:22:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from E10-MBX3-DR.personale.dir.unibo.it ([169.254.3.175]) by E10-HC2-CS.personale.dir.unibo.it ([10.11.1.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:22:25 +0100
From: Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it>
To: Sebastian Schildt <schildt@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] IPND draft 03 remarks
Thread-Index: AQHRViZvQcFn23iDEU6PkMnf3p7SE58JqC0O
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:22:23 +0000
Message-ID: <FF1750B0EDD9434A98CD71DA0C0357260132FD727F@E10-MBX3-DR.personale.dir.unibo.it>
References: <A97A415F-05E9-4AE5-A61A-1EEC389EACD3@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
In-Reply-To: <A97A415F-05E9-4AE5-A61A-1EEC389EACD3@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: it-IT
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.12.1.72]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCxc2ooav0d3GYwa4OUYv2NSwWB59/YHJg 8ji+dj+zx5IlP5kCmKK4bZISS8qCM9Pz9O0SuDN+NwYXnFCs+L3/MlMD4xWpLkZODgkBE4k9 VxYzQ9hiEhfurWfrYuTiEBJYwihx9MNqZghnB6PEtB0r2ECq2AQ0JA7euswOYosI+El8a58I ZgsDxbc8amKCiGtK/LvQwwxhG0nMubWaFcRmEVCVePSyHSzOKxAtcfrqW7CZQgJOEuun9rKA 2JwCzhKzjk4Hm8koICsxYfciRhCbWUBc4sX0E+wQlwpILNlzHupqUYmXj/+xQthyErsf72OF qNeRWLD7ExuErS2xbOFrqL2CEidnPmGZwCg6C8nYWUhaZiFpmYWkZQEjyypGseLcdN3i5MQ8 I73kYr3SvMykfL2c/ORNjMBI6TwjYb2DccYFt0OMAhyMSjy8CyYvChNiTSwrrsw9xCjBwawk wtt6a3GYEG9KYmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcd64tsQwIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimCwTBydIN5eU SHFqXkpqUWJpSUY8KGbji4FRK9XA2CIrpGe5rM7cf+Iqwepdx4z6rldJ/DxW+6D9kDr3e45X T+s+FPw5nVWhFZATVXPIn/HE/UvnZ//eHiKXvvuxl+a7gl2Gq6TN/jgIRHec6V1tZOj/tCC6 XfR88R1/U4FsXjVG90/brt4VTf4Yo2v3SfDB4l6xmbekPpZveJFxznaW5pzr2Zf8lViKMxIN tZiLihMBkUHf26sCAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/oW3Li26CwuWMa1GFWIA76oieVEs>
Subject: Re: [dtn] IPND draft 03 remarks
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:22:30 -0000

Dear Sebastian,
   I am not active on the draft, but I have used ipnd on both IBR-DTN for Android 1.0 , and also in ION (ipnd is in 3.4.0, just released).
I have only a brief comment on 2.6. I would not be enthusiast of keeping coupled the versioning of two different protocols, ipnd and BP. In general, it is always better to decouple things, to make easier their maintenance. Now the situation is moving, as you said, so now this is not a problem. Tomorrow, in case of any new version of BP (in iETF)  we should change also the version of ipnd (maybe still in IRTF?). Why not to decouple them, by introducing a field devoted to BP version separate by that of ipnd? 
Last but not least, in my opinion ipnd is an essential component of the DTN architecture, so I am grateful to you and to all researchers that have devoted their effort to its definition and implementation.
Yours,
  Carlo




________________________________________
Da: dtn [dtn-bounces@ietf.org] per conto di Sebastian Schildt [schildt@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
Inviato: sabato 23 gennaio 2016 22.38
A: dtn@ietf.org
Oggetto: [dtn] IPND draft 03 remarks

Hello,

I am not sure if this is the right group to discuss IPND (dtnrg seems to have vanished completely? At least the webpage), but since it has been mentioned in the last interim I will post it here.

I just had a quick look, and here are some initial remarks

> 2. Protocol Description
> Nodes use DTN IPND beacons, small UDP messages in the IP underlay, to advertise presence

Since the IPND format is quite generic, I would not limit it to UDP. In fact, we have used earlier versions of the draft on 802.15.4.  While not all possibilities can and should be spelled out in the IPND draft, maybe at least the introduction should be more open.
When really defining details how to use IPND on different convergence layers (such as specific UDP Port, or how the represent CL addresses in Beacons) the question is, would we consider this extensions of this Draft, or addon-Drafts "Using IPND over <magic transport>"?


> 2.6.  Beacon Message Format
>  o  Version: An 8-bit field indicating the version of IPND that
>     constructed this beacon.  The present document describes version
>     0x04 of IPND.  This version field is incremented for IPND if
>     either the IPND protocol is modified or the Bundle Protocol
>     version is incremented.
Good idea to use this to determine the BP version directly in the beacon. However, this does only make sense if the draft clearly states WHICH BP version corresponds to IPND 0x04 :) (since this is still in draft state, no problem if rfc5050bis is also a moving target, we can always change the IPND draft to follow draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis)


> 2.6.4.  Neighborhood Bloom Filter
I am not sure I get it completely, maybe should be rewritten for clarity. But I am quite sure there is not enough information to really get the correct parameters for the BF. The data structure in the beacon should explicitly give the number of hash functions and the length of the BF (that is a given due to the TLV encoding). Then the IPND document should describe an unambiguous way, how to generate k hash functions. I do not have a detailed plan for this, but just from the top of my head: Something like SHA-1 (ubiquitous hardware acceleration, good distribution, cryptographic security irrelevant) salted differently and take the first bits. (Or some slicing, however slicing is dangerous, becasue then you cannot support arbitrarily long BFs). If we want this to work an small microcontrollers, probably a simpler hash than SHA1 would be needed, however than we really need to choose well, to make sure it is robust against collusion. Many "simple, just 10 lines of C"-kind of hashes make compromises. By choosing an established cryptographic hash,  we can be sure it is a very solid general hashing function (even MD5 would be perfectly fine).


I am not sure how many people are actively working on the draft (but I suggest they are all reading this list :) ) . If it helps I can also (with a couple of days delay) propose some text addressing the issues mentioned.


Sebastian