Re: [Gen-art] [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 06 February 2020 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 B2DD0120071; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 05:31:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=rSRLxjxl; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ggIW+E7P
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 B3YwPozjdN_a; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3207D12006B; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2761C21C4D; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:31:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:31:32 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=j V/TQ+f+6mBUSPLrqflg4fVv1rSe/HIASs702y+5wRM=; b=rSRLxjxlDjhZg3EIq 2IrEdIB8t83sWAycEArxeQ4/7nc04/3dAQfV7KXPD40EUvvH3bNwHRfA8E7scQXM 0QQ6PwV9bhU0Ag4wpFqkJKJQrUTOZioIAhIxdewXuKcqC9wLDfQsyf5rVUE1tSby MBsqjllFqNC0niMLUX54Q0/Ay1+4ub8FsAiMj12rmxXrYY/TD+FFEn9jaWz0zHnq Ew4GLjm7pPd2xGBXerPiwipDCEyNNlguJTxIxbZQrqiYGsGA2wrMz4nCe6MK5xbW q2H6mlzrr6TYTLK81bpCuO2Azj2QgVp2o1wxUXjPAHIv5oudn0ZdfLxTgzc2FdpV tYwBw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=jV/TQ+f+6mBUSPLrqflg4fVv1rSe/HIASs702y+5w RM=; b=ggIW+E7P3ADkRVNVvirHdK3xgn4J3e3gqw0pAv7HCOZsRmdnLOOsAj6Y+ FN+C0u43xjBlTYv0/3bT4Z6pCK80/0LlzWi9u6PBDF1yJUGujOJ9ikdJ/8Cx/eog ogAR2ulO8vSrXEZkmeQoj1H1LzYml12dEazQZq7uDTu7l6B/e/OJUAIQjDFhz/z7 rgenKgsDkocnFfseI+lESDDDV2FAcrNYhbsG5HsGmlePW9DqNWOqDYNIDP2HFZPb vY1cMGRQAw3j+rISnzf3tQ9dmT7aZrW79hHE7I9CInTFDGA7xt6ijBORvDE5fE2n yr1W0i3/2eTFH4On6lIu7kJVv7I0Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MxU8XgVF9zZxsU3ikBXZPeYgQuMaN_FpljZdQF6_Iu7sm6TGcmSrzg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrheefgdehvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrih hnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdekvdenucevlhhushht vghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrgestghooh hpvghrfidrihhn
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MxU8Xm3ltISWBSRfIZuabNH5IyZ4n2gq1eF1MOgUxFAMw7AQICzCHg> <xmx:MxU8Xmp55fjYbpSUxH2PQr-EzI0opgzdhz-c589EEtGZA--T-iZVVQ> <xmx:MxU8XlVcMY20-hiCrOwt9PcCX1egetTo-feuu0D2ypSe-e1hW-l60g> <xmx:NBU8Xmgkq3w0a4UFiZCB_NsbXhv7RJ9ZGrwd7AaeNoVPZtcXdihw0A>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.82]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B02773060272; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:31:30 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <c472db72a3ab42c28eec516738c2dfc8@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:31:31 -0500
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis.all@ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B6BB9DB-86D1-4C22-8434-FC03CC6FE660@cooperw.in>
References: <158049865249.21219.7770941261141759152@ietfa.amsl.com> <c472db72a3ab42c28eec516738c2dfc8@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CFe3aiac8A8GAEs22i4V2LkoISc>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 13:31:38 -0000

Stewart, thanks for your reviews of this document. Scott, all, thanks for addressing Stewart’s comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa


> On Feb 5, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello, Stewart.  The DTN WG chair has advised me to go ahead and post the next version of the bpbis draft, so version 22 is now available for your review.  On the specific issues you bring up:
> -	The [BPSEC] reference has been updated as you propose.
> -	The allocation policy for the Block Processing Control Flags registry (10.4) and the Bundle Protocol URI Scheme Types registry (10.6) has been changed to Standards action, as the number of possible values is limited in both cases.  For the other registries I didn't think we needed to be so exacting, as these values are integers of essentially unlimited length.
> -	I think "as needed" is actually better, as it indicates that this more robust protection may be needed in some cases but not in others.
> -	All occurrences of "bpsec" have been changed to "BPsec".
> -	"namespace" has been changed to "registry in the Bundle Protocol Namespace" in sections 10.1 through 10.5, though on re-reading the updated text I notice that I missed this change in a few places; I'll make those corrections on the next iteration of the draft.
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant via Datatracker
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 11:24 AM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: last-call@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis.all@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2020-01-31
> IETF LC End Date: None
> IESG Telechat date: 2020-02-06
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This version is a major improvement on the version that I reviewed earlier. I thank the authors for addressing my earlier review comments. There are a number of minor issues that the authors ought to look at, particularly around IANA allocation policy. Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> [BPSEC] Birrane, E., "Bundle Security Protocol Specification", Work
>        In Progress, October 2015.
> 
> SB> I think that this should be a reference to draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec
> 
> =======
> 
> In Section 10.3 the allocation policy has been changed to Standards Action which seems wise given the size of the registry. However all the registries  called up in 10.1..10.5 are all small and the authors ought to consider upgrading them of at least a portion of them to a higher bar than at present (they are specification required). Specification required can be met by a specification that is not even publicly accessible which can grab multiple entries. This is a dangerous position to leave small the registries of a Standards Track  protocol.
> 
> I have only checked the registries specifically addressed by this specification and the authors ought to check the other registries in the Bundle Protocol Namespace to see if any of them are also vulnerable.
> 
> ========
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Note that more robust protection of BP data integrity, as needed,
> 
> SB> I that should be ….,if needed,
> 
> =====
> 
> SB> Bpsec appears as BPsec and bpsec also the noun bpsec is not defined
> I assume you mean the BPsec protocol or mechanism or similar.
> 
> =======
> The current Bundle Block Types namespace is augmented
> 
> SB> I think that strictly you should say:
> SB> The current Bundle Block Types registry in the Bundle Protocol 
> SB> Namespace is
> augmented.
> 
> This problem applies to the registries 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art