Re: [Gen-art] [ipwave] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46

[NABIL BENAMAR <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Roni,

There was a privacy review of the draft and I think we have reflected all
concerns.

In MHO, the security review will be done as part of the process.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 11:40 Roni Even (A) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not a security expert, I was just trying to reflect that when reading
> the document I got the impression that privacy is a major concern since the
> IP-OBU is moving and its location can be traced by sniffing the MAC
> addresses.
>
> Maybe it will be good to have a security review of the document. I also noticed that there is support in IEEE SA - 1609.4-2016 for MAC address change.
>
>
>
> Roni Even
>
>
>
> *From:* Dick Roy [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 17, 2019 10:48 PM
> *To:* Roni Even (A); 'NABIL BENAMAR'; 'Roni Even'
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; 'IETF Discussion'; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [ipwave] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* its [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Roni Even (A)
> *Sent:* Monday, June 17, 2019 6:26 AM
> *To:* NABIL BENAMAR; Roni Even
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; IETF Discussion; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [ipwave] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> The only comment left is:
>
>
> 2. In section 5.2 "The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on
> the
> 802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined.". Reading the next sentence it
> looks
> to me that this is needed as part of the solution and should not be left
> for
> the unknown future.
>
>
>
> Should we reformulate here?
>
>
>
> I was expecting some recommendation since the changing of MAC address is
> important to address privacy issues (discussed in section 5). Currently it
> is left open with no recommendation , only saying that dynamic change of
> MAC address is needed.
>
> Maybe the document should have some normative language for example in
> section 5.1 that will say that IP-OBU MUST dynamic change their MAC
> addresses
>
> *[RR] I highly recommend AGAINST this!  There will be a number OBU and RSU
> implementations that DO NOT require anonymity, and don’t want it either.
> Furthermore, immutable identifier change must be coordinated with all other
> interfaces and protocols otherwise changing them is useless.*
>
>
>
> Did the document go through security area review?
>
> *[RR] If it did, and the above was not mentioned, then something was
> missed.*
>
>
>
> Roni
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gen-art [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *NABIL BENAMAR
> *Sent:* Monday, June 17, 2019 12:48 PM
> *To:* Roni Even
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; IETF Discussion; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
>
>
>
> Dear Roni,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> Please, see my answers below.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 09:52 Roni Even via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Almost Ready
>
> 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-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2019-06-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
> The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> 1. Section 4.2  says "IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media
> as
> QoS Data" while appendix F say "The STA may send data frames of subtype
> Data,
> Null, QoS Data, and
>       QoS Null.
>
>
>
> I will update the appendix to reflect the text in section 4.2.
>
>
> 2. In section 5.2 "The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on
> the
> 802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined.". Reading the next sentence it
> looks
> to me that this is needed as part of the solution and should not be left
> for
> the unknown future.
>
>
>
> Should we reformulate here?
>
>
> 3. In Appendix I 4th paragraph " However, this does not apply if TBD TBD
> TBD. "
> .. What are the TBDs?
>
>
>
> The whole sentence will be removed.
>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 1. In appendix I last paragraph "Support of RFC 8505 is may be implemented
> on
> OCB." should be "Support of RFC 8505 may be implemented on OCB." 2. In
> Appendix
> I "OCB nodes that support RFC 8505 would support the 6LN operation in
> order to
> act as a host".  I think that instead of "would" it should be "should"
> also if
> this is a recommendation why not have this paragraph not in an appendix
> with
> "MAY" and "SHOULD
>
>
>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
>