Re: [Gen-art] genART review of draft-ietf-cdni-logging-15

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your detailed review, Martin, and for your work on this important document, Francois. Where are we with the updates? I chose to hold a Discuss on the IESG telechat to ensure that a couple of things are resolved. But if you already have changed text, I could clear.

Jari

On 16 Feb 2015, at 17:16, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thank you Martin. 
> We are working on this.
> 
> Francois
> 
>> On 12 Feb 2015, at 02:24, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> And because I hit send too soon, here's more...
>> 
>> I think that this is ready.  I have a couple of major concerns:
>> 
>> Major General 1.
>> 
>> However, I would like to see more consideration given to forward
>> compatibility.  There are a lot of normative statements regarding what
>> MUST be included in the file, but no actions described for a receiver.
>> That means that it is hard to establish expectations regarding file
>> format evolution.  If the file is rejected when the version isn't
>> "CDNI/1.0", then that makes changes to that field impossible (and the
>> specification of ABNF for it somewhat pointless).
>> 
>> Major Specific 2.
>> 
>>  An implementation of the CDNI Logging interface MUST support the
>>  TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite ( [RFC5288]).
>> 
>> Please don't do that.  There are mandatory to implement cipher suites
>> in all the specs you cite and you don't need anything special here.  I
>> have no problem with recommending PFS suites, but you might be better
>> served there by citing the uta TLS usage draft:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp
>> 
>> S 3.4.1
>>  o  cs(<HTTP-header-name>):
>> HTTP header fields, esp. in HTTP/2 can contain HTAB, even if that
>> isn't permitted by the grammar.  You probably want to describe how
>> that is handled.
>> 
>> Bottom of P33 (won't adding the established-origin directive
>> invalidate the MD5?  What do you expect to happen there?  (I see two
>> choices, it would help if you could even *hint* at what you would
>> prefer implementations to do).
>> 
>> Nit: HTTP/2 not HTTP/2.0
>> 
>> Question: There is no mention made of range requests, for which this
>> might be well suited, particularly if files get large.
>> 
>> I note the privacy considerations are pretty reasonable.  I'd be much
>> happier if IP anonymization were not optional though.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 12 February 2015 at 12:02, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>> 
>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 
>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>> you may receive.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-cdni-logging-15
>>> Reviewer: Martin Thomson
>>> Review Date: 2015-02-12
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-18
>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>>> 
>>> Summary:
>>> 
>>> Major issues:
>>> 
>>> Minor issues:
>>> 
>>> S3.1 needs to define the basic atom that is used for the logging file.
>>> It appears as though the atom is an octet.
>>> 
>>> S3.2 uses the wildcard ABNF rule (i.e., <text....>) too aggressively.
>>> RECLINE (a potentially confusing name) could be more strictly defined.
>>> 
>>>   <CDNI Logging File> = 1*<DIRGROUP RECGROUP>
>>> 
>>> ... is not valid and could be:
>>> 
>>>   CDNI-LOG-FILE = 1*(DIRGROUP / RECGROUP)
>>> 
>>> That implies that an empty file is not valid.  I'd have thought that *
>>> rather than 1* would be better.
>>> 
>>> S3.3 again uses wildcard rules too aggressively.  DIRNAME (not the
>>> unix command) should be defined more explicitly, even if it is just to
>>> specify what characters are allowed.  Use text to further constrain
>>> it.  As it stands, a generic processor cannot know that the name
>>> doesn't permit the inclusion of (for instance) ":" or CRLF.  A common
>>> method is to define something like this as:
>>> 
>>>   DIRNAME = Version-directive / UUID-directive / ... / extension-directive
>>> 
>>> More commonly, go up a level and define directive using the choice.
>>> That way, each directive can define a name and value together using
>>> ABNF.  e.g.
>>> 
>>>   Version-directive = "Version" ":" HTAB "CDNI" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
>>> 
>>> I wouldn't be so prescriptive about the version format.  Unless there
>>> are specific semantics you want to extract from each digit.
>>> 
>>> What is a receiver expected to do if the version *isn't* CDNI/1.0 ?
>>> Discard the entire file?  That doesn't seem like a good way to ensure
>>> forward compatibility.
>>> 
>>> UUID: this a Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID)
>>>        from the UUID Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace specified
>>>        in [RFC4122]) for the CDNI Logging File.
>>> 
>>> I don't know how to apply this.  Is it the UUID portion of the URN or a URN?
>>> 
>>> Please don't use MUST here: If the
>>>        two values are equal, then the received CDNI Logging File MUST
>>>        be considered non-corrupted.
>>> 
>>> MD5 collisions are easy to manufacture.  I'd also drop the MUST from
>>> the following sentence.
>>> 
>>> S3.4: more wildcards
>>> 
>>> S3.4.1: I wouldn't worry about HTTP/2 being special here.  All that
>>> speculation is painful, especially since HTTP/2 will likely be
>>> published before this document.  Better to just cite it and avoid
>>> getting caught up in the details.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>> 
>>> There are lots of uses of lowercase "may".
>>> 
>>> Page 6 has a few instances of missing hyphens in dCDN3/dCDN2 etc...
>>> S6.2.1: chunck
>>> 
>>> S3.1 the DATE/TIME rules can/should reference RFC 3339
>>> 
>>> S3.3 using ":" HTAB as a separator makes it hard to construct these
>>> files manually.
>>> 
>>> S3.4 use of "c:" in combination with the unordered list is confusing
>>> when the prefix is actually "c-".  Maybe use the string "c-" quotes
>>> and all to denote the prefix.
>>> 
>>> S3.4.1 citing RFC 7230 is sufficient for HTTP/1.1; and probably for
>>> HTTP in general at this moment.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art