Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Thu, 07 March 2019 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.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 4BC3712785F; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 04:29:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 28qwLYkFMwRn; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 04:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 F01BB127598; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 04:29:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C6B93CD0ABDA2731FF47; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:28:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.210) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:28:58 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.222]) by DGGEMM402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.210]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 20:28:48 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Datatracker on behalf of Roni Even <noreply@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-dots-data-channel.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-data-channel.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27
Thread-Index: AQHU1M96HszzcMciF0iwB2qD1pPbmaX/+XRQgAAeAMA=
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:28:48 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18CB9C0D@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <155195406376.15866.11400149967812730230@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA352D6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA352D6@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.69]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/mNcE6FWCKlQSZqyewwLqJDdsdik>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 07 Mar 2019 12:29:03 -0000

Hi Med,
Thanks I am OK with your response only open one


> administrator even if rejected.

[Med] This is deployment-specific. For example, if conflict handling requires "notify an administrator for validation", there is no point to report again. 
[RE] Yes but for example "reject all" may cause an attack cancelling a valid filter, so it should also be notified to the administrator for validation. I did not see any discussion about this is the security section that will warn about such a possible attack that can happen for a specific policy.
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 1:57 PM
To: Datatracker on behalf of Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27

Hi Roni, 

Thank you for the review. 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Datatracker on behalf of Roni Even [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 7 mars 2019 11:21 À : gen-art@ietf.org Cc : 
> draft-ietf-dots-data-channel.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; 
> dots@ietf.org Objet : Genart last call review of 
> draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27
> 
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> 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-dots-data-channel-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2019-03-07
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-13
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> The document is ready with nits and one minor issue for publication as 
> a standard track RFC
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> 1. In section 2 there is a discussion about conflicting filtering requests. 

[Med] I guess you meant section 3.

I
> think that this can be considered as an attack and should be mentioned 
> in the security section.

[Med] Conflicts may be caused by various "legitimate" actions. Of course, as discussed in the Security section, an attacker who access to a DOTS client can do a lot of things such as installing some filters including conflicting ones. This is already reported in the security section.


 I also think that such a conflict must be reported to the
> administrator even if rejected.

[Med] This is deployment-specific. For example, if conflict handling requires "notify an administrator for validation", there is no point to report again. 

> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1. In figure 2 missing HTTP layer?

[Med] No, that is on purpose. RESTCONF (which is an HTTP-based protocol) layer is sufficient.    

> 2. In section 6.1 "If the request is missing a mandatory attribute or 
> its contains " should be "it" instead of "its" 3.

[Med] Thank you for catching this. Fixed.

 In section 7.3 "A DOTS client
> periodically queries  ...".  I did not see any text about why this is 
> done is this a common behavior? how often? 4.

[Med] This is left to implementations. We don't have any solid argument to recommend a value. 


After figure 29 "bound to a given ACL
> as
> shown in Figure 28 " I think it should be 27?

[Med] This should be Figure 30. Fixed. Thanks.

 5. In figure 31
> ""pending-lifetime": 8000 ," why 8000 and not 9080 as in figure 28?
> 

[Med] This is because pending-lifetime was decremented since the GET in Figure 28 was issued.   
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art