[Geojson] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-geojson-03: (with COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 01 June 2016 10:21 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160601102124.16044.92023.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 03:21:24 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geojson/Ct8L42V8-eOfYLnCbOShrHSsJjU>
Cc: draft-ietf-geojson@ietf.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com, geojson-chairs@ietf.org, geojson@ietf.org
Subject: [Geojson] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-geojson-03: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-geojson-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geojson/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


- The last bullet of section 3 says "any number of other
members" and in general there are no limits here on size
or complexity of the objects. (There are some should
statements, which is good.) I wonder if there's a
potential DoS vector there?  Speculating, a DoS couuld be
based on the CPU if calculations based on the object are
complex, or it could be based on the size of the object
being VERY BIG. Are either of those realistic? (I'm not
saying they are, just asking.) I'm guessing it'd not make
sense to have a max size to these things, but is there any
guidance that you could offer to implementers or would it
be good to say that implementations SHOULD have some
maximum size (I don't care how you'd want to measure that)
with a recommendation that it be able to handle things up
to at least some nominated size? (Section 11.2 does talk
about this for senders/creators but says nothing for
recipients/readers.) 

- Section 10: I'd say it'd be good to add a reference to
something that describes some of the privacy issues with
objects such as these, and with potential mitigations, but
more importantly calling out that naively "fuzzing"
boundaries may not be as effective as seems at first the
case. I took a quick look and didn't find anything that
seems really good but maybe something like [1] would be a
good reference.

[1]
http://www.sebastianzimmeck.de/riedererEtAlPhotograph2015ShortPaper.pdf

[Geojson] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Stephen Farrell