Re: [Gen-art] [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 06 February 2020 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@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 89C0B1208F1; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:25:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 03tFPXQIV-0p; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) (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 6EE0F1208D8; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id f129so464373wmf.2; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 07:25:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=G8n3rQrSYXSH33GBjN81fm0CXikl5jl5ijQea0X4cPU=; b=GVkdZ+/2SRr4quFuMq9KzOICRrcriUdGKffYK6vNIPcPy5QsAT8IhffUZiyTF/Pa+e 6d8P5qoIIV/JcK32XqSSkWdfQtsywcSjz1bqTNS1ysAOFkTBWLywGYEkdtrf03soGXs2 YmAmVNFJHlEzodb8OKk2pRIz/5GJTtKAqdCtzin9a1FySayrLOCCRd8imhCX8FWb+Iuv BSXUgoSN2IYNVDdO/gJ+lTtTNI8E/XpJHk77cVhLVaI3I+Wott5CuwbOutO1EXzv92qa J2OJCzcecBAUxiBG2JzSJeyw+A8MEIXWtOiXKA/H0/fFkJ31RtV3s8J5chnRTr4yea6F VNbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=G8n3rQrSYXSH33GBjN81fm0CXikl5jl5ijQea0X4cPU=; b=SqcG5iTs5lKHvlXKo/bcwf+qqvSRdSwP261CWphMWC2v+7pqif70PV5aKhpwgzCumv YUB7FfkH0il0OWe9bHNPcwvGjYj9cU3Ecd65/p3W3xvyCcpexIORBss0qB9+Rp0eTGKl 0uQx0qOUicGlCBwRDss2r8I16bwvmoXLmfhb9OmQDyBZwMCWPvURwDYGCMl70519VFTA E2wJhs+YszPfKeVscr7CMmsbmo4/xeUhU6YPNB9leECWrM0zvcC6LSnI4HLz9nNpeO8b zgm4COxewC4ydY5+f9glSECQRUETWVn6ESag38rz+r3Ha4kBqbsk9uhqIBaItiGRg0aF 4kJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV6c6EKhY1DF2C+QeHLfFzHHvVqXJMddsGW0r/kojbQ61Bjgkda 8maUoexzQriT52N2iWiVK74=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzInQewTPpsiu13aPSr56Pa0tsWhuOb3hlPJamwir5IaWT+8SEhT7b9E6NS5R+sBIM0TmCNCQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3b87:: with SMTP id i129mr5061234wma.142.1581002699849; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 07:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from appleton.fritz.box ([62.3.64.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r3sm4471511wrn.34.2020.02.06.07.24.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 07:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c472db72a3ab42c28eec516738c2dfc8@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:24:57 +0000
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis.all@ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5DB86A33-9A8C-463B-B738-CCD556593C53@gmail.com>
References: <158049865249.21219.7770941261141759152@ietfa.amsl.com> <c472db72a3ab42c28eec516738c2dfc8@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/tn6PS233ioj5_bsEWPShjD1fW9w>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21
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, 06 Feb 2020 15:25:05 -0000

Thank you for addressing these issues.

- Stewart

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 22:54, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> Hello, Stewart.  The DTN WG chair has advised me to go ahead and post the next version of the bpbis draft, so version 22 is now available for your review.  On the specific issues you bring up:
> -	The [BPSEC] reference has been updated as you propose.
> -	The allocation policy for the Block Processing Control Flags registry (10.4) and the Bundle Protocol URI Scheme Types registry (10.6) has been changed to Standards action, as the number of possible values is limited in both cases.  For the other registries I didn't think we needed to be so exacting, as these values are integers of essentially unlimited length.
> -	I think "as needed" is actually better, as it indicates that this more robust protection may be needed in some cases but not in others.
> -	All occurrences of "bpsec" have been changed to "BPsec".
> -	"namespace" has been changed to "registry in the Bundle Protocol Namespace" in sections 10.1 through 10.5, though on re-reading the updated text I notice that I missed this change in a few places; I'll make those corrections on the next iteration of the draft.
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant via Datatracker
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 11:24 AM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: last-call@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis.all@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2020-01-31
> IETF LC End Date: None
> IESG Telechat date: 2020-02-06
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This version is a major improvement on the version that I reviewed earlier. I thank the authors for addressing my earlier review comments. There are a number of minor issues that the authors ought to look at, particularly around IANA allocation policy. Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> [BPSEC] Birrane, E., "Bundle Security Protocol Specification", Work
>        In Progress, October 2015.
> 
> SB> I think that this should be a reference to draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec
> 
> =======
> 
> In Section 10.3 the allocation policy has been changed to Standards Action which seems wise given the size of the registry. However all the registries  called up in 10.1..10.5 are all small and the authors ought to consider upgrading them of at least a portion of them to a higher bar than at present (they are specification required). Specification required can be met by a specification that is not even publicly accessible which can grab multiple entries. This is a dangerous position to leave small the registries of a Standards Track  protocol.
> 
> I have only checked the registries specifically addressed by this specification and the authors ought to check the other registries in the Bundle Protocol Namespace to see if any of them are also vulnerable.
> 
> ========
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Note that more robust protection of BP data integrity, as needed,
> 
> SB> I that should be ….,if needed,
> 
> =====
> 
> SB> Bpsec appears as BPsec and bpsec also the noun bpsec is not defined
> I assume you mean the BPsec protocol or mechanism or similar.
> 
> =======
> The current Bundle Block Types namespace is augmented
> 
> SB> I think that strictly you should say:
> SB> The current Bundle Block Types registry in the Bundle Protocol 
> SB> Namespace is
> augmented.
> 
> This problem applies to the registries 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn