Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-06

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 21 July 2020 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 475133A1340; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 3HeYB_ZyuKSI; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 E44053A1345; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id f5so22403339ljj.10; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=54oDEQeJr1fi02YMfFnNbGYzSnspahv9YBVvu2Dec+Q=; b=dLOHueqiG80M+LrGtvV3j0LF2bVU87WzgKev36r2pdWAU0zlR2QLBMyZW/Ph/clP+R wFBc0WXfEcxDALsXKBMB8neYxPnidMgP5iNw5di9PE/ZFpiaEfUsG7V1C+fFatECs8wr LrD607L141wkiiOdB/T1590QAeENOezFUPfJsjohn64kuS7CYZSCA5X++iNCQr+y49KN a+zh4rgoUgVivjs0fwK52U0u+XNh7obwhLqKEsc78p+BAIfrnIs2Rypkle4Vcx90+9+r l4yuZ/ypOP3hKF2+rIF2q11JRcjiWLWMRD4NMVfF+Ag3110AxuFxRydJdSCbTiAV3jIs QFWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=54oDEQeJr1fi02YMfFnNbGYzSnspahv9YBVvu2Dec+Q=; b=rHGkQPbM4zyPh2jM90j5VQKLkidIEMBJCGfExAg5bVE94EjLbcS13SqkxVVPi70N91 MZr/4t+TLRSMH25T4/o6KZAezwjQxkJzbGdTfA4uUU4nRHU+ayVwFBbYZ5VnLYvm26/K LHXDD6jtZ6zLhMQh/sQMlJ9WnWT6xiNZpRlHv52VqYV2Ntt2K2/TM9m55pSOrBMJXoe9 gV1QHKs+VeGF5+tycPhNhjP/TclP6IzhTnzf730QUl+iDcoOVAg+crgnWwHR+rWxmQXU Eqr/za/ChSwM7G8shJ3TvlWHNQhupkjsJstBYReavRQu2clgfG1DN7wcrZY5zST3bBiQ PSEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531MZEj1usKQ2G53NjuYEfNwr7WRMe4ydiF7YuFbQQz+Wb+qI1bj OkKyAg5SR5VAobeztF2RqPLct5YHag85aRtsvRg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyMQfPbhUsz7gG77REZB24A5QkRT5cThPLcWTBWv7yYAbWXg0/vuJm7ZjV7CLV7j+LI6GkNN9M205f6y5esGtU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9611:: with SMTP id v17mr12289167ljh.110.1595300105821; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159344297273.15718.9292174200591066435@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmVjSezyTs=r4zL4OjzzK5eG1SMZHLs+5NoNhwniZYx18w@mail.gmail.com> <20200717223913.GD41010@kduck.mit.edu> <CA+RyBmWhCOzuCYBDPeyywjaiR-vsvRQavBVo7xzYEOEgdBvnZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFgnS4Ub0jyp2RL8UOZvWNGAgEZpGpgM2KwZLqP=RjUGo81epw@mail.gmail.com> <20200721014809.GA41010@kduck.mit.edu> <CA+RyBmU9G1T4Xr2dwHXKqYzbPQXxiYDRrGd-Xx6watoH46Lb2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU9G1T4Xr2dwHXKqYzbPQXxiYDRrGd-Xx6watoH46Lb2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:54:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUKqyYukRoZLSBXK7ZN+zZ+SJv3tvyC5ifoxxwmocSC8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, last-call@ietf.org, gen-art <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv.all@ietf.org, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qnCKYlAKpiutCykTHd8CVb6pREM>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-06
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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 02:55:13 -0000

Hi Dan and Ben,
the updated text is below. I greatly appreciate your feedback.

NEW TEXT:
    A STAMP
   Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
   (SSID).  The SSID is a two-octet-long non-zero unsigned integer.
   SSID generation policy is implementation-specific.
   [I-D.gont-numeric-ids-generation] thoroughly analyzes common
   algorithms for identifier generation and their vulnerabilities.  For
   example, an implementation can use algorithms described in
   Section 7.1 of [I-D.gont-numeric-ids-generation].  An implementation
   MUST NOT assign the same identifier to different STAMP test sessions.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:01 PM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
> thank you for the suggestions. Would the Informational reference to
> draft-gont-numeric-ids-generation be reasonable?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 6:48 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Dan.
> >
> > Greg, my recommendation would be to refer to the appopriate section of
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-numeric-ids-generation-03 for the
> > needs in question.  My understanding is that STAMP needs only unique (not
> > ordered) session IDs, and that furthermore, an occasional accidental
> > collision would not be catastrophic, in which case we can use the
> > "Uniqueness (soft failure)" characterization of Section 7.1 of the linked
> > document.
> >
> > -Ben
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:37:08AM +0300, Dan Romascanu wrote:
> > > Greg's understanding of my comment is correct.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:56 AM Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ben,
> > > > thank you for the reference, very helpful. As you've noticed, this method
> > > > mentioned as an example. Would you suggest referencing another technique?
> > > > As I understood, Dan's comment was not specific to the sequential increment
> > > > allocation policy but to provide some guidance to an implementor.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:39 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi again Greg :)
> > > >>
> > > >> Reading Dan's review reminded me of one other point (inline)...
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 12:22:04PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > > >> > Hi Dan,
> > > >> > thank you for your review, detailed questions, and helpful suggestions.
> > > >> > Please find my answers and notes below tagged GIM>>.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Regards,
> > > >> > Greg
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:02 AM Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <
> > > >> > noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > > >> > > Review result: Ready with Issues
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 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-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-06
> > > >> > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > > >> > > Review Date: 2020-06-29
> > > >> > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-06
> > > >> > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Summary: Ready with issues
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This is a clear, well-written document. There are a few minor issues
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > benefit from clarifications and possible edits before approval.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Major issues:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Minor issues:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > 1. Section 3. Is there any recommended strategy to generate SSIDs? Are
> > > >> > > these
> > > >> > > supposed to be generated sequentially? Randomly? How soon is the 16
> > > >> -bit
> > > >> > > space
> > > >> > > supposed to wrap-up? Some clarification would be useful I believe.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > GIM>> Because test sessions, in general, will be performed for different
> > > >> > periods of time, implementation will need to manage the pool of
> > > >> available
> > > >> > identifiers. I agree, the initial allocation may use sequential
> > > >> ascending
> > > >> > increment by one method, but at some point, it will be
> > > >> > "get-the-next-available number". I propose to update the text as
> > > >> follows:
> > > >> > OLD TEXT:
> > > >> >    A STAMP
> > > >> >    Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
> > > >> >    (SSID).  SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer.
> > > >> > NEW TEXT:
> > > >> >    A STAMP
> > > >> >    Session-Sender MAY generate a locally unique STAMP Session Identifier
> > > >> >    (SSID).  SSID is two octets long non-zero unsigned integer. SSID
> > > >> > generation
> > > >> >    policy is implementation-specific. For example, sequentially
> > > >> ascending
> > > >> >    incremented by one method could be used for the initial allocation of
> > > >> > SSID.
> > > >> >    Because of test sessions lasting different time an implementation
> > > >> that
> > > >> > uses
> > > >> >    SSID MUST monitor the pool of available identifiers. An
> > > >> implementation
> > > >> >    SHOULD NOT assign the same identifier to different STAMP test
> > > >> sessions.
> > > >>
> > > >> I would actually recommend against mentioning the "sequential increment"
> > > >> strategy.  There's some justification for why in
> > > >> draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations (and more in the references),
> > > >> which I just completed my AD Evaluation of with intent to AD sponsor as a
> > > >> BCP.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> Ben
> > > >>
> > > >