Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-06

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi again Greg :)

Reading Dan's review reminded me of one other point (inline)...

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 12:22:04PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> thank you for your review, detailed questions, and helpful suggestions.
> Please find my answers and notes below tagged GIM>>.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:02 AM Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > 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 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-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-06
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review Date: 2020-06-29
> > IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-06
> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >
> > Summary: Ready with issues
> >
> > This is a clear, well-written document. There are a few minor issues that
> > would
> > benefit from clarifications and possible edits before approval.
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > 1. Section 3. Is there any recommended strategy to generate SSIDs? Are
> > these
> > supposed to be generated sequentially? Randomly? How soon is the 16 -bit
> > space
> > supposed to wrap-up? Some clarification would be useful I believe.
> >
> GIM>> Because test sessions, in general, will be performed for different
> periods of time, implementation will need to manage the pool of available
> identifiers. I agree, the initial allocation may use sequential ascending
> increment by one method, but at some point, it will be
> "get-the-next-available number". I propose to update the text as follows:
> OLD TEXT:
>    A STAMP
>    Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
>    (SSID).  SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer.
> NEW TEXT:
>    A STAMP
>    Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
>    (SSID).  SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer. SSID
> generation
>    policy is implementation-specific. For example, sequentially ascending
>    incremented by one method could be used for the initial allocation of
> SSID.
>    Because of test sessions lasting different time an implementation that
> uses
>    SSID MUST monitor the pool of available identifiers. An implementation
>    SHOULD NOT assign the same identifier to different STAMP test sessions.

I would actually recommend against mentioning the "sequential increment"
strategy.  There's some justification for why in
draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations (and more in the references),
which I just completed my AD Evaluation of with intent to AD sponsor as a
BCP.

Thanks,

Ben