Re: [Gen-art] [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-drip-rid-24
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> Tue, 10 May 2022 16:48 UTC
Return-Path: <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7043FC15E419; Tue, 10 May 2022 09:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bAh6jU5PADsI; Tue, 10 May 2022 09:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (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 19520C15E3EC; Tue, 10 May 2022 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310C262569; Tue, 10 May 2022 12:47:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ZTBAlRoJzrX4; Tue, 10 May 2022 12:47:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.160.11] (unknown [192.168.160.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12C8D6247F; Tue, 10 May 2022 12:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <e8bc01ca-7d99-f93b-7caf-f127c322f7e8@labs.htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 12:47:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-drip-rid.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tm-rid@ietf.org
References: <165219993739.31003.15943195085450775813@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <165219993739.31003.15943195085450775813@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7_BcrQIMZh4HV0rbU_Ia6DJ4wlo>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-drip-rid-24
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 16:48:04 -0000
Per Wikipedia: "Multilateration is a technique for determining a stationary or moving "vehicle's" position based on measurement of the times of arrival (TOAs) of virtually any type (physical phenomenon) of energy wave having a known waveform and propagation speed when traveling either from (navigation) or to (surveillance) multiple system stations." 1st modern use was WW1 audio multilateration of artillery. Anyway that is what I was once told... I guess with this audience, that should be defined... I will go over your comments and get back to you. Bob On 5/10/22 12:25, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-drip-rid-24 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2022-05-10 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-05-11 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > Ready with nits. I can't speak for the robustness of the security choices but > the document is well written apart from a couple of pieces of deep jargon that > may need explanation for more naive readers (notably multilateration - > definitely a new one on me!) > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > None > > Nits/editorial comments: > Abstract/s1: The term 'self-asserting IPv6 address' is defined in Section 3 > of the DRIP architecture. AFAICS 'self-asserting' is novel terminology, at > least in this context, and I think it would be good to point to the > architecture in the Abstract and to make it a little clearer that the term > self-asserting (IPv6 address) is defined in the architecture - I missed that on > first reading - as well as the idea of HHITs. > > s1, para 3: s/are updated, these/are updated, but these/ > > s3.2: Query: Is there are good reason for leaving the HIT/HHIT Suite ID value > 4 unused? > > s3.2, s3.4.2, s8.2 and s8.4: After the definition of the EdDSA/cSHAKE128 value > '(RECOMMENDED)' is appended. What or who is this recommendation aimed at? > The users of the specification or IANA in relation to TBD3? The registry > doesn't seem to have scope for recording this recommendation. If it is aimed > at users, I think there should be words to this effect in s3.2 and it is > probably not relevant in s3.4.2. > > s3.4.1.1 and s8.4: Similar question regarding '(RECOMMENDED)'. > > s3.4, para 2: s/As such the following updates HIP parameters./The subsections > of this section document the required updates of HIP parameters./ > > s3.5.2.1, s3.5.3 and s3.5.4: I suggest adding a reference to the HITv2 archive > where the prefix 2001:20::'28 is allocated (3 places). > > s4, para 2: 'The 2022 forthcoming ...' is not future proof. Suggest adding an > RFC editor note to remove '2022 forthcoming' during editing. > > s5, para 1: s/does not intent/does not intend/ > > s5: The examples should be using the 'example' top level domain. > > s5, para 7: The phrase 'If we assume a prefix of 2001:30::/28,' is confusing. > This prefix is the one the document is asking IANA to allocate for the HHITs so > I suggest 'Using the allocated prefix for HHITs TBD6 [suggested value > 2001:30::/28] (See Section 3.1)'. > > s8.1, last item: 'False?': A decision needs to be taken on what value should > be here. > > s9.1, para 4: Is 'multilateration' sufficiently well understood to be used > without explanation? > > App A, para 1: s/EU/The EU/ (2 places). > > >
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-d… Elwyn Davies via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] [Drip] Genart last call review of d… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Gen-art] [Drip] Genart last call review of d… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Gen-art] [Drip] Genart last call review of d… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Gen-art] [Drip] Genart last call review of d… Elwyn Davies