Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Mon, 17 June 2019 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 5867A120139; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 5vR308f14Iux; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 60AC91200B2; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 06:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4A2DBC9A9261EB9507FC; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:25:57 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:25:53 +0100
Received: from lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:25:53 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) by lhreml706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:25:52 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.116]) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:25:50 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: NABIL BENAMAR <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
CC: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
Thread-Index: AQHVJPHkCSGcS63Kz0uKZOTqzhsmtaafz9OQ
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:25:49 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18D37579@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <156067514313.12185.6559961431451739070@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD8vqFcngv75CvQTSY1vnL1TsLWoFVtw8b_q6hvBRRdSMDZZsw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD8vqFcngv75CvQTSY1vnL1TsLWoFVtw8b_q6hvBRRdSMDZZsw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.60]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18D37579dggemm526mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/JSU1c_k62BYz5n9QWiADWH-pB4A>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:26:04 -0000

Thanks,
The only comment left is:

2. In section 5.2 "The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on the
802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined.". Reading the next sentence it looks
to me that this is needed as part of the solution and should not be left for
the unknown future.

Should we reformulate here?

I was expecting some recommendation since the changing of MAC address is important to address privacy issues (discussed in section 5). Currently it is left open with no recommendation , only saying that dynamic change of MAC address is needed.
Maybe the document should have some normative language for example in section 5.1 that will say that IP-OBU MUST dynamic change their MAC addresses

Did the document go through security area review?

Roni


From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of NABIL BENAMAR
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; IETF Discussion; its@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46

Dear Roni,

Thank you for your review.
Please, see my answers below.





On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 09:52 Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Almost Ready

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-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2019-06-16
IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:
The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. Section 4.2  says "IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as
QoS Data" while appendix F say "The STA may send data frames of subtype Data,
Null, QoS Data, and
      QoS Null.

I will update the appendix to reflect the text in section 4.2.

2. In section 5.2 "The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on the
802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined.". Reading the next sentence it looks
to me that this is needed as part of the solution and should not be left for
the unknown future.

Should we reformulate here?

3. In Appendix I 4th paragraph " However, this does not apply if TBD TBD TBD. "
.. What are the TBDs?

The whole sentence will be removed.

Nits/editorial comments:
1. In appendix I last paragraph "Support of RFC 8505 is may be implemented on
OCB." should be "Support of RFC 8505 may be implemented on OCB." 2. In Appendix
I "OCB nodes that support RFC 8505 would support the 6LN operation in order to
act as a host".  I think that instead of "would" it should be "should"  also if
this is a recommendation why not have this paragraph not in an appendix with
"MAY" and "SHOULD


Agreed.