Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Tue, 10 April 2018 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.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 C96CC126DCA for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.33
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 0-iLINC_QdRc for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (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 B9C86126CF6 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:39:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1523360372; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=QNMpGPOJ15am30zFxqSWkgOVutI/wDZMtG5plP9CpQk=; b=Dw3NSYmw+fQx7kl2HpR+g5MtKspk0SNzIEMgiNmOdTAykRmg+EW5A8Eyhv1GZKoa ht7oJjWM/OVPMTdfnChCfcElc3LW0CLrTkhsAe9hTEdyZdOoqr84+hG6HSQ4Gzim T7rqnkLoIWp57L31wx5/UqFWyRfPzkBqF4yZgAmQJaE=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-a81ff70000005e22-da-5acca27491a5
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.24]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 38.49.24098.472ACCA5; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:39:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [100.94.3.37] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.382.0; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:39:31 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, <gen-art@ietf.org>, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>, <hummen.committees@gmail.com>
CC: <draft-ietf-hip-dex.all@ietf.org>
References: <201802261730.w1QHUZ3d046925@givry.fdupont.fr> <097cf2a4-cd8f-ec19-124b-01efcb1943a1@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <524a1c94-8ab2-55bc-4044-e5792c78b198@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:39:30 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <097cf2a4-cd8f-ec19-124b-01efcb1943a1@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7hG7JojNRBldei1jcnHmZ0eLRtJ2s FldffWaxeHf0O4tFw7rPjA6sHu+m/mH12DnrLrvH7klN7B5LlvxkCmCJ4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL 4Mo4dKGZreCLUsXM5/0sDYyXpLoYOTgkBEwk5vws7WLk4hASOMIose3dKzYIZyWjxPodp5hB ioQFDCQWHPHqYuTkYBOwkNhy6z4LSI2IQDejxMKG3+wgCWYBVYnGNpB6TqDmAonlrbvA4rwC 9hJP1r1mArFZgGpeT7nHBmKLCsRI/DjaxQJRIyhxcuYTFpBdnAIOEluvVIOYzAKaEut36UNM F5e49WQ+E4QtL7H97RyoTdoSy5+1sExgFJyFZNAshO5ZSLpnIelewMiyilG0OLU4KTfdyEgv tSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMw5A9u+W2wg/Hlc8dDjAIcjEo8vO3zz0QJsSaWFVfmHmKU4GBWEuE9 uPh0lBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXFeC7/NUUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQbGpf8n b3k7y6yxSsfUcZXZh9mGq36uVmwMWVhbwG5wnPPh7GkG5x5ccWXccXLVJCtZ81u7XhVx73n8 4K/7YTYp2XM8tnIvK9q79aZt+b2NnWm/2/rCdcfe5pjMLvCu61GxeZjjuv/P0gdMTG42m3Zr /9/5YKv8BKdr09pKTkydvPPe33chW3yUxZRYijMSDbWYi4oTAX3PMUV1AgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cSLXC2EPNnD6e0xZkgUy4ruTclc>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hip-dex-06.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:39:37 -0000

Bob, Rene, could you please get back to Francis (see below)?

Gonzalo

On 05/03/2018 1:14 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Bob, Rene,
> 
> could you please look into the review below and get back to Francis? Thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> On 26/02/2018 7:30 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
>> 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-hip-dex-06.txt
>> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
>> Review Date: 20180224
>> IETF LC End Date: 20180226
>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>>
>> Summary: Ready
>>
>> Major issues: None
>>
>> Minor issues: None
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments: 
>>  - ToC page 3: you use the US spelling of Acknowledgments in the ToC
>>   and the English one (acknowledgements) in the technical body.
>>   Even when it is not very consistent I believe this follows RFC 7401
>>   choice so I am fine with this.
>>
>>  - 2.1 page 6: please add/move to RFC 8174 which updates RFC 2119 fixing
>>   the keyword case silly issue.
>>
>>  - 2.2 page 6: perhaps "sort" should be added here?
>>
>>  - 2.3 page 7 (twice): (c.f.  Section 3)  -> (see Section 3) or
>>   simply (Section 3)
>>
>>  - 4.1.3.2 page 16 (at end of line): e.g. -> e.g.,
>>
>>  - 5.3.3 page 25: I don't believe the critical property for
>>   random value is to be "uniformly distributed" (for instance
>>   I could have put "unpredictable"). I leave this to the security
>>   directorate who should propose a better wording if they don't like
>>   the current one...
>>
>>  - 5.3.4 page 26: same comment.
>>
>>  - 6.1 page 27: this section does not really explain what is the puzzle
>>   (it only stands the equation to verify) but I remember the explaination
>>   was before with a reference to 6.1 so I have no concern.
>>
>>  - 6.2.1 sender 3 page 27: hidden dependency on the sort definition
>>   for HOST_g/HOST_l so gl/lg keys. Yes it is in 6.3 but 6.3 is after.
>>
>>  - 6.3 pages and 30: sort is used page 29 and defined after page 30,
>>   this is why IMHO the question to move the definition to 2.2 notation
>>   is a good one...
>>
>>  - 6.3 page 30: / is not associative so ceil(L/RHASH_len/8) is bad.
>>   The text shows it must be ceil(L/(RHASH_len/8)) (vs ceil((L/RHASH_len)/8))
>>
>>  - 6.5 1. page 31: Otherwise, it must drop the packet. -> MUST
>>
>>  - 6.6 1. page 33: the system should process the R1 packet -> or SHOULD
>>   or (I prefer) the system processes the R1 packet
>>
>>  - 6.6 8. page 34: The R1 packet may have the A-bit set -> can
>>   (not better from a language point of view but clearer and BTW
>>    used for instance in 6.10...)
>>
>>  - 6.6 13. page 34: it may either resend an I1 packet -> MAY? (cf 11.)
>>
>>  - 6.7 5. page 36: Otherwise, the system should process the received I2 ->
>>   or SHOULD or (better) processes (and drop -> drops)
>>
>>  - 6.7 15. page 37:
>>      If the A-bit is set, the Initiator's HIT is anonymous and should
>>      not be stored permanently. -> IMHO SHOULD NOT or directly MUST NOT
>>
>>  - 6.9 page 39: If a NOTIFY packet is received in state I2-SENT, this
>>    packet may be an I2 reception acknowledgement of the optional
>>    -> replace "may be" by "can be" or (better) "is"
>>
>>  - 7 page 40: Please put "If a Responder is not under high load, #K
>>    SHOULD be 0." in its own paragraph (i.e. add a break before "If").
>>    It makes clearer this sentence is a requirement when the text before
>>    is the rationale.
>>
>>  - 8 page 40: " either supports HIP DEX or HIPv2 must be able to detect"
>>   -> MUST or "has to"
>>
>>  - 8 pages 40 and 41: I think that the first and last paragraphs of
>>   section 8 say the same thing. Should you keep both?
>>
>>  - 9 page 41: I'd like to see a formal proof of the DEX protocol.
>>   I believe you share this wish as you cite SIGMA.
>>
>>  - 9 page 42: I'd like to go further and recommend (lower case) the
>>   use of a RNG (vs PRNG) when available (hopefully no longer an exception).
>>
>>  - 9 page 42: Hence, HIP DEX HITs should not be use -> SHOULD or
>>   ought to?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
>>