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

Hi Jari,

I have an interim version that addresses part of the IEG review comments (all the ones for which I have discussed resolution by mail).
Do you prefer that:
	* I post that interim version, to allow some folks to clear their position, OR
	* I hold off until I have addressed all/most review comments ?
Whatever is most convenient for you guys.

Thanks

Francois

> On 5 Mar 2015, at 12:14, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> 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) <flefauch@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thank you Martin. 
>> We are working on this.
>> 
>> Francois
>> 
>>> On 12 Feb 2015, at 02:24, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> 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 <martin.thomson@gmail.com> 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
>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 