Re: [Gen-art] [ipwave] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-47

Hi,
I still do not think that the following sentence in section 5.2 text "The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on the 802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined." make sense. I think that a sentence that will say
“implementations should use a policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on the 802.11-OCB interface”

Roni

From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 11:47 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion; its@ietf.org; Gen art; draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org; Nabil Benamar
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [ipwave] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-47

I reviewed the -49 version so my questions are on that version.
Alissa

On Jul 10, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com<mailto:Suresh@kaloom.com>> wrote:

Hi Nabil,
  Roni's telechat review is for the version on which I issued the ballot (in this case it is -47). If you think the issue is resolved in a later version (I do not believe so in this case), you can respond to point out the actual text change that you made to address Roni’s comment.

Thanks
Suresh

On Jul 10, 2019, at 4:38 PM, Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com<mailto:benamar73@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Alissa,

Thank you for your review. However, I have updated the draft and now it's in -49 reflecting previous comments.

Best regards
Nabil Benamar
-------------------
نبيل بنعمرو

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:29 PM Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
Roni, thanks for your review. Alex, Nabil, thanks for your responses. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to try to get more clarity about the relationship between MAC address changes and IID changes, among other things.

Alissa

> On Jul 4, 2019, at 2:05 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org<mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> 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 wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-47
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2019-07-03
> IETF LC End Date: None
> IESG Telechat date: 2019-07-11
>
> Summary:
> The document is ready to be published as a standard track RFC with an issue
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> this is about my previous comment.
> The text in section 5.1 "A vehicle embarking  an IP-OBU whose egress interface
> is 802.11-OCB may expose itself to  eavesdropping and subsequent correlation of
> data; this may reveal data considered private by the vehicle owner; there is a
> risk of being tracked.  In outdoors public environments, where vehicles
> typically circulate, the privacy risks are more important than in indoors
> settings." and "there is a strong necessity to use protection tools such  as
> dynamically changing MAC addresses"
> so even though there are privacy concerns there is no normative text saying
> that some method is needed. "strong necessity" is not normative ..
>
> A new sentence was added to section 5.1 "An example of change policy is to
> change the MAC address of the OCB interface each time the system boots up"
>
> I got more confused by section 5.2 text "The policy dictating when the MAC
> address is changed on the 802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined."
>
> So what I got from section 5.1 and 5.2 is that protection tools to address
> privacy concern are needed but without any normative text.  Dynamic changing
> of MAC address is an option, no other option is mentioned.  Example for when to
> change MAC address is on system boot and the policy when to change MAC address
> is to be determined.
>
> To summarize what the document currently says is that privacy risks are more
> important for outdoor public environment and it is left for implementations to
> decide if and how to address it.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

_______________________________________________
its mailing list
its@ietf.org<mailto:its@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its