Re: [Gen-art] [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-drip-rid-24
Elwyn Davies <elwynd@folly.org.uk> Mon, 16 May 2022 14:56 UTC
Return-Path: <elwynd@folly.org.uk>
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 18534C18D81A; Mon, 16 May 2022 07:56:27 -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 ltN2K6UrxzJd; Mon, 16 May 2022 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from authenticated.a-painless.mh.aa.net.uk (painless-a.thn.aa.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:62::26]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68F89C18D818; Mon, 16 May 2022 07:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d.7.7.5.3.9.d.2.3.b.6.c.e.0.4.a.1.0.0.0.f.b.0.0.0.b.8.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa ([2001:8b0:bf:1:a40e:c6b3:2d93:577d]) by painless-a.thn.aa.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <elwynd@folly.org.uk>) id 1nqbl2-0059QK-9B; Mon, 16 May 2022 15:31:34 +0100
Message-ID: <7a3a4498-6293-7822-77ab-e5be5e44c263@folly.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 15:30:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-CA
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>, 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> <7934cf85-98d7-8cd0-942f-b8244222ff7c@labs.htt-consult.com> <2daf66de-77d6-fc0d-eee2-c350acdd3315@labs.htt-consult.com>
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@folly.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <2daf66de-77d6-fc0d-eee2-c350acdd3315@labs.htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WYGmRClubbRhHTe8dl-2FT60H2s>
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: Mon, 16 May 2022 14:56:27 -0000
Hi, Bob. Sorry for the tardy reply. Thanks for the responses, and, yes, I think the changes clear up the nits I identified. Now good to go. Cheers, Elwyn On 16/05/2022 13:32, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > Elwyn, > > I believe your comments are the only opens left. Does this response > and the current drip-rid-26 address your points? > > Note that the question sec 8.1 was addressed by IANA and is reflected > in -26. > > Thank you. > > Bob > > On 5/10/22 21:13, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> >> >> 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!) >> >> Multilateration occurs once in the draft, sec 9.1. It is a main part >> of draft-moskowitz-crowd-sourced-rid where I have the definition: >> >> Multilateration: Multilateration (more completely, pseudo range >> multilateration) is a navigation and surveillance technique based >> on measurement of the times of arrival (TOAs) of energy waves >> (radio, acoustic, seismic, etc.) having a known propagation speed. >> >> >> Do you think it should be added here in the definitions section? I >> really don't want to pull it from 9.1, and I don't see adding this >> whole definition into 9.1. >> >> Multilateration is an important tool in aviation traffic management. >> Oh and this is fundamental to GPS. >> >> I do expect, at some point soon, that crowd-sourced-rid will become a >> wg draft... >> >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> para 2 of the Intro references Architecture, but what do you think of: >> >> This document describes the use of Hierarchical Host Identity Tags >> (HHITs) as self-asserting IPv6 addresses, as described in the DRIP >> Architecture, and thereby a trustable identifier for use as the >> Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification and tracking (UAS >> RID). >> >> >> >> >>> >>> s1, para 3: s/are updated, these/are updated, but these/ >> >> Fixed for -25 >> >>> >>> s3.2: Query: Is there are good reason for leaving the HIT/HHIT >>> Suite ID value >>> 4 unused? >> >> Because draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto has it as '5', and that draft >> (which will be needed for secure-nrid-c2) proposed 5 (and 6) because >> a dead draft used 4... >> >> I will see if I can move them all up. I do have to check with >> implementors to see if there are any issues that I am forgetting. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> To implementors. This is a copy from 7401, and maybe it is no longer >> the style? >> >> From 7401: >> >> HIT Suite Four-bit ID Eight-bit encoding >> >> RESERVED 0 0x00 >> RSA,DSA/SHA-256 1 0x10 (REQUIRED) >> ECDSA/SHA-384 2 0x20 (RECOMMENDED) >> ECDSA_LOW/SHA-1 3 0x30 (RECOMMENDED) >> >> >> Can someone provide guidance on current style for me? >> >>> >>> 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./ >> >> Fixed. Thanks, I like this improved wording. >> >>> >>> 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). >> >> is it enough to put in 3.5.2.1 a reference to sec 6, RFC7343? >> >> For HIPv2, the Prefix is 2001:20::/28 (Section 6 of [RFC7343]). >> 'Info' is zero-length (i.e., not included), and OGA ID is 4-bit. >> >> >>> >>> s4, para 2: 'The 2022 forthcoming ...' is not future proof. Suggest >>> adding an >>> RFC editor note to remove '2022 forthcoming' during editing. >> >> the doc is in ASTM editor's hands now. But we all know about final >> editing processes! >> >> Does this resolve your concern: >> >> Note to RFC Editor: This, and all references to F3411 need to be >> updated to this new version which is in final ASTM editing. A new >> link and replacement text will be provided when it is published. >> >> >> >>> >>> s5, para 1: s/does not intent/does not intend/ >> >> fixed >> >>> s5: The examples should be using the 'example' top level domain. >> >> It was the authors' intent to show an example of an aviation related >> top level domain. Is such an intention incompatible with FQDN >> examples? Note that icao.int IS the current ICAO domain. It is not >> established, at this time, that DETs will be in this TLD. It IS being >> discussed in ICAO, and the authors are part of that discussion. >> >> >>> 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)'. >> >> Done >> >>> s8.1, last item: 'False?': A decision needs to be taken on what >>> value should >>> be here. >> >> I check in 7343, sec 6 and there 'False' is used. I don't know this >> part of IANA considerations and need guidance. >> >>> s9.1, para 4: Is 'multilateration' sufficiently well understood to >>> be used >>> without explanation? >> >> In aviation. See beginning of the reply. I am defining it in >> draft--drip-crowd-sourced-rid >> >>> App A, para 1: s/EU/The EU/ (2 places). >> >> Done >> >> >> And thank you for your review. >> >> Bob >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [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