Re: [Gen-art] Gen-RTP LC review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 31 January 2016 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856A61A6EDB; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:56:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 4ot7jYVmQthk; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A7EA1A6EDA; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id is5so105488157obc.0; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:56:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5OU9MRTxhTACwFElvYWVvk9x9hRCUQC/XkSwNM3R6VY=; b=HtgaD6M4ULgyXwB/e8bXbV65T1ccoLbOT8UvJlUTvFt8T6K3sKb/ByA4XLjaV7StWk 2T/wOXzs0fe5RY1yRjhQoOnhbOOMhjmcZ880fM+NeWG+QF1J8it3kIMU4Ex31nHVZVeJ FTmGZjsKOZsM5uMhLUPrrR6Qi65LOWDiHddebkJzyt03sKiqotQAA76/wWnqs9Xs61tx BfLmBC8QuBe7qg+x7VakUwe5BparFvFHqJOro46JrCSjM1P/VYny//JUvikHgcigMtih jHSFKSav1aH0W2xEUixNJqY/Dv8tB+Mj5psNrOo7eo6rm04wtO145b8JhsoxrELs/6Ff pO2A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5OU9MRTxhTACwFElvYWVvk9x9hRCUQC/XkSwNM3R6VY=; b=eSbFb73JyVCAR2zbXQ8V2Lqirm41WE/GrVXsKEoPlwp+O8iC9Y14LTrRmXo5Jzz1hO lWuCtNmM8CLRFCO+OHSvpLjzcGSXXXon7YBXr+wHRi/DTcTC0eRTR7FRnwHmoCqxaQWU O58OiXiRWCrNFz2L9i5PPlkSBHAJzL29ItjfJzJ9gBcjoyGVhDObt1uLjBD0Oj1UGbln oKaIGqVmxBUMgkInjJe8+ODRW6wXZZw6MWyYfbtvYGtN9WomfqZrXMitAz5WhcRtejYT JeSedMapp0M4kLyX6P4nrcrGYiCHTH3uG2WO8wglJl3KlkBOa8VazncbDRiftQ45atvA qcgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSLygdGgCVX/5GHM0pdtIppUh42R528W9rHjF5MQq63lHRrYtFiuOLjnZf5ROPDlUb4A9qyUjFAKedxTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.88.196 with SMTP id bi4mr15355905obb.56.1454284559782; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:55:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.157.26.28 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:55:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5678640F.7070204@gmail.com>
References: <5678640F.7070204@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 15:55:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjvEmm_FAZpC8pJ1BnnOsvjbnWthDncrM0M8eKfV+4DWNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/E2Ihmb4zlZmz9hPxMhXBxaxzzIs>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-RTP LC review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 23:56:01 -0000

Jouni,

Thank you for reviewing the document and apologies for the belated
reply. Please find my answers to your comments inlined below:

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC with
> small nits to be corrected.
>
> Major issues: None.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> * The document seems to imply/assume that a DNS query has multiple question
> sections with different QTYPEs. At least the exmaples in lines 226 and 278
> make me read so. I wonder whether this is actually the intention. If not,
> reword/edit accordingly to avoid the confusion. This is to avoid known
> issues when QDCOUNT>1 or have a justification to do so.

That was a formatting issue that ended up putting two queries on the
same line. I've fixed the formatting and clarified that these are
different queries. E.g.:

   An Initiator willing to associate with a node would typically issue
   the following queries:

   o  Query #1: QNAME=www.example.com, QTYPE=HIP

   (QCLASS=IN is assumed and omitted from the examples)

   Which returns a DNS packet with RCODE=0 and one or more HIP RRs with
   the HIT and HI (e.g., HIT-R and HI-R) of the Responder in the answer
   section, but no RVS.

   o  Query #2: QNAME=www.example.com, QTYPE=A

   o  Query #3: QNAME=www.example.com, QTYPE=AAAA

   Which would return DNS packets with RCODE=0 and respectively one or
   more A or AAAA RRs containing IP address(es) of the Responder (e.g.,
   IP-R) in their answer sections.


> * Section 5 and the assiciated HIP RR figure mostly mentions public key but
> not HI anymore. For the clarity I would suggest adding text that the public
> key is the HI as well.

I've clarified in section 5 that the public key _is_ the HI:

5.  HIP RR Storage Format

   The RDATA for a HIP RR consists of a public key algorithm type, the
   HIT length, a HIT, a public key (i.e., a HI), and optionally one or
   more rendezvous server(s).


> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> * IDnits complains on outdated reference: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 but
> this can be corrected e.g., by the RFC Editor.

This is automatically updated at draft generation by XML2RFC, and, as
you note, at the time of publication by the RFC Editor.

> * Line 97: s/address\(es\)/addresses

done

> * Line 162: s/obtain/obtains

done

> * Line 163: s/initiate/initiates

done.

> * The document sometime uses "initiator" instead of "Initiator" e.g., in
> line 173. Suggest always using "Initiator" when meaning the HIP Initiator.

done.

> * API is never expanded.

expanded at first use.

> * Sentence between lines 204-206 is somewhat hard to parse. Suggest
> rewording.

reworded more simply:

   In addition to its IP address(es) (IP-R), a HIP node (R) with a
   single static network attachment that wishes to be reachable by
   reference to its FQDN (www.example.com) to act as a Responder would
   store in the DNS a HIP resource record containing its Host Identity
   (HI-R) and Host Identity Tag (HIT-R).


> * Line 201: "HIP node (R)" probably means Responder. Suggest actually
> stating that.

done as part of the rewording above.

Thanks again for the review. Best regards,

--julien