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

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Sat, 18 July 2020 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@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 6F97F3A0C62; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 LOVhjWb15suC; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (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 2D2983A0C61; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id l1so12622569ioh.5; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:37:20 -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=NW1Flz6o/wed7p9YZT4RWS9b5kgrSD3hZRvDBQSIq8o=; b=Z78DBaAY0ChxW+5tkYwBWB70VmgAui9nEfMatnC9pGEDd3tyySh67Td7GdKir3g2Nm MAxowT3xyefK1Li19mJiRwbATczgfEAOW+hZ9Z9ggFVkzD0Fy30AwJOZMaDIf0G3OVbO fVD1phjgerjCZsoaaHn1Lu6gZ6BFBCSHY2h0s4KpQ84guBjWwJJyEuUAo5J2hwrpWlTe mw96ZwYtVQxYVXL/nRK2RIeCHvslEm9tUo07FX0YWmle7OVpXeV8tWaWbfW25hNKYDMm aCtJqRIU1OLL3kN/48UPBKQ/pD7Nf07znyG31Wc/pvx4231NrauZ4iGuplnY7xmiIXi4 hXWg==
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=NW1Flz6o/wed7p9YZT4RWS9b5kgrSD3hZRvDBQSIq8o=; b=ZM0r1tStd2LZ2S7ts9yO8FIZTDzAl8EQLT5xJZTEK1LUVDsYKgX2whx9klhLrClvcY tMFX31ER9tSNLhkk0Dh4SjDTFZNHPx3PSXG9b7vDwalsVwzmw8gcEtq3eGwvuWcVtK9t +8J65B0eqwaUxaVtRUvXiZop8iNMXY/2L1393bkA7d6hpbuBl9a3K7VESzhLrF0HEljt mHLzUI8tacJrLnhtcxe+4P72tcXjc920z9qLVDSHjL6JHeu/BG2gjKfVIzAyjMOqA3Ye txZfVQyeSSll7VpgvUCCT4BDTutQIng5E6qiWtYI6JBys5lWt30FAn7J9/fINUeWSGb3 izSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530L0S/pbg0cfv2kDLnNXNu61llqLKfaNCDu6oK6qSKqAMS64oXS TuA685iLfwvi7jNUPuJ98KlsbfTsfQCyvgktwGc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJcrz4vtsOoe0TgEimmc/ehV1bhVdJTsefl02V7iZ2xMXxRx9XyFg1rUL2Psde2i2jZ+GaJ0Wv8zz3IL9BRhQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c343:: with SMTP id t64mr13499554iof.66.1595054240328; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 23:37:20 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmWhCOzuCYBDPeyywjaiR-vsvRQavBVo7xzYEOEgdBvnZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 09:37:08 +0300
Message-ID: <CAFgnS4Ub0jyp2RL8UOZvWNGAgEZpGpgM2KwZLqP=RjUGo81epw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000646dac05aab18139"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/x5EM_fQ_0QgPBY7XM9_n_PlfroM>
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: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 06:37:23 -0000

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
>>
>