[hiprg] comments on draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-02.txt

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Sun, 07 November 2010 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0C528C0FC for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T43eZXE3Rq9R for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.32.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB883A69DF for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id oA74aKhj024838 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:36:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oA74aKkA025894 for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:36:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-03.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.71.23]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oA74aJQc025887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:36:20 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.83]) by XCH-NWHT-03.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.71.23]) with mapi; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:36:19 -0700
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <jeffrey.m.ahrenholz@boeing.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 21:36:18 -0700
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-02.txt
Thread-Index: Actli5TrJN4bW56URdGgMRn2lZ/0ZgYjOzBQ
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEC451AA9@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20101006191503.18D503A71C5@core3.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101006191503.18D503A71C5@core3.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "hiprg@irtf.org" <hiprg@irtf.org>
Subject: [hiprg] comments on draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-02.txt
X-BeenThere: hiprg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <hiprg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hiprg>
List-Post: <mailto:hiprg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 04:36:06 -0000

Jeff,

I reviewed your recent changes as suggested by Ari to include RFC 2119 text in your draft, and those changes are fine with me.  I'll send a few editorial comments off-list, but I had a few non-editorial questions:

1) it is stated that secret_hash is an optional SHA-1 hash of secret value.  Does it have to be specified that this is SHA-1; couldn't it be any other hash function?  It seems to me that this value is just opaque to the server so maybe the draft should just state that the secret_hash is recommended to be a pseudo-random value (such as generated by a hash function)

2) should it be possible (or is it desirable or not) to return error code 3 for the rm operation?  I'm guessing that OpenDHT may not return this and hence you do not include this case, but you talk about modifying DHT servers and it may be advantageous to allow a server to optionally return an error code 3 on a rm operation in case something went wrong (such as nonexistent record or bad secret_hash).

3) I would recommend to classify the references as Normative vs Informative.  It seems that RFCs 2045, 4843, 5201, 5205, and I-D.cert are normative.  Is there a normative reference for OpenDHT interface (rather than listing the website url in the body of the draft)?

- Tom