Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04.txt

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Thu, 02 June 2016 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 3C2AE12D1D0 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 06:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 mndmkchLDrG5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 06:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C417F12D715 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 06:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id xk1so6035480pac.2 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 06:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LvUQ2cqw9bwiUWpKGyqjeNd3rfQiFyiFVw7S7PfPyqI=; b=QJk97uuXEIXyea6BVqC1O2CjuOMC9AW23rleSOeB5IqsMlV7TD4l3h1Up4oo12k/Gx bqA/S4rS+KYLyynTP9Y87Mo1KzK7h34l8RQFxJPaNWTeCEHXjn0WeHrogrzMCZ1nMTzQ 3qmwb2o61qAcDsUTKfB901qdizZAL8OwAVp+wUocq5VBF9a4lWdYY+4ZAkZ8fr6AxqI8 rBTFTUKZM5Se7Nv9ikj2qEC4WlolMhfhuhNeoYnxPe9mBcKvWrB0cLprPGl6iB3gejVu pS09zFDOCnGb03I/w2m7vLIJZ8gxXk/NFyZDTeatFyZUYwDfh65a7prjsixocL8rtvRu wVlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LvUQ2cqw9bwiUWpKGyqjeNd3rfQiFyiFVw7S7PfPyqI=; b=KkZ9tJEb49wptG4Yli1X3W8fvC4xry2a2kMEe9gJSC8tTMyXMv2poLgpLpCP036Z+X GB+n1UBnIdhiMjE7CpxYRxVMsM9CvGq2GN5xW1FknSwq/IP6v55OXx3TZOo+i7D+qo5F ajRdPqi3xWP5BYZoFc5l47OCYA6O5PttU1oMQf9GwFoaxtZEr1VCJYuu8ydVrQFhUCh0 GTKW/FcQ1XVBEyeKE54WZwxObTy9f9NTJfQ8tvezNbpxBwGcftGl3a5GgSyOQMPDmeNl YaCQWHYJrdLIMn5yGoTI4rDadKEtqR+2m7x93waQJoJ6ROOfHZJQSgC5jstfXH0eiuym SLYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKPLkgygIIgOMy/xqYjGof0Y/nM+O9+3/yLCJ6y6xFIfxOtAoYELMjCL0pxFaIsmQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.142.232 with SMTP id rz8mr5810683pab.22.1464875357338; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 06:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:b00:c580:31d0:55a5:bcc6:4ec4:1917? ([2601:b00:c580:31d0:55a5:bcc6:4ec4:1917]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ql1sm40084072pac.2.2016.06.02.06.49.16 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Jun 2016 06:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <344ECC01-3D92-4A5F-9106-7E5056C34920@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 06:49:14 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9A657A95-765E-4A0B-AB30-0BAC122D8288@gmail.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37F96BF6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <344ECC01-3D92-4A5F-9106-7E5056C34920@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/euCSdv1MIEzjgrKrYW-TAG1ar6s>
Cc: "draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req.all@tools.ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:49:20 -0000

Hi,

Right. My fault, I just missed the mail from Christer. I’ll get back to it asap.

- Jouni


> On 02 Jun 2016, at 06:24, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your review, and good questions, Christer. Authors, I have not seen a response or a new version. What’s up?
> 
> Jari
> 
> On 07 May 2016, at 17:48, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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>
>> 
>> Document:                                     draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04
>> Reviewer:                                        Christer Holmberg
>> Review Date:                                7 May 2016
>> IETF LC End Date:                        12 April 2016
>> IETF Telechat Date:                    N/A
>> Summary:                                      The document is well written, and almost ready for publication is informational RFC. However, I have a few editorial issues, related to the Introduction, that I ask the authors to address.
>> Major Issues:                                None
>> Minor Issues:                                None
>> Editorial Issues:
>> 
>> Q_ABSTRACT_1:
>> 
>> The text says that the draft “discusses” requirements. In my opinion it should say “defines” or “specifies”.
>> 
>> 
>> Q_INTRODUCTION_1:
>> 
>> Please add references for TLS (for TCP) and DTLS (for SCTP).
>> 
>> 
>> Q_INTRODUCTION_2:
>> 
>> The text says: “…or alternative security mechanisms independent of Diameter (e.g., IPsec) is used.”
>> 
>> 2A: I guess it should be “are used”?
>> 
>> 2B: I am not sure I understand what “independent of Diameter” means.
>> 
>> 
>> Q_INTRODUCTION_3:
>> 
>> The text talks about security between non-neighbour nodes, while the draft name includes “e2e”. However, when reading Section 4, non-neighbour does not necessarily mean end-to-end. I think it would be good to explicitly clarify that in the Introduction.
>> 
>> 
>> Q_INTRODUCTION_4:
>> 
>> The text says: “This document collects requirements for developing a solution to protect Diameter AVPs.”
>> 
>> 2A: It needs to be clear that it’s about protecting AVPs between non-neighbour nodes.
>> 
>> 2B: Instead of “collect”, please use the same terminology as in the Abstract.
>> 
>> 
>> Q_INTRODUCTION_5:
>> 
>>              Please enhance AVP on first occurrence. Currently it’s not done until Section 3.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art