Re: [Hipsec] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Wed, 28 February 2018 20:18 UTC
Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834B012426E; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:18:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tlbYVEBQ4hwZ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:18:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [50.253.254.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38F70120227; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:18:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02116224C; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:18:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id V--KsPSpBdYQ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:18:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2E8362244; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:18:16 -0500 (EST)
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis.all@ietf.org, hipsec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
References: <151893202236.27832.16542073394919248181@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <5f1465c2-5ab8-eab5-651e-f8e704e1a0c6@htt-consult.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:18:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <151893202236.27832.16542073394919248181@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/asouLBjk4J8db356NCnjC08Whhs>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:18:27 -0000
Mail folder problems. I will be catching up with all of this starting Friday (Purim tonight and tomorrow). Bob On 02/18/2018 12:33 AM, Joel Halpern wrote: > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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-hip-rfc4423-bis-18 > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2018-02-17 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFCs. > The following comments may be useful for the authors to consider. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: > In the table in section 2.2 (Terms specific to this and other HIP > documents) the Host Identity Hash is defined as "The cryptographic hash > used in creating the Host Identity Tag from the Host Identity." I am > pretty sure the last word should be Identifier, not Identity,, which > matches the meanings and the usage in the following term. > > In section 4.1 second paragraph, it seems odd to refer to the > public-private key pair as the structure of the abstract Host Identity. > Given that the earlier text refers to the Public key as the Host > Identifier, I am not sure how you want to refer to the public/private key > pair. But I do not think it "is" the structure of the Host Identity. > > In the section 4.4 discussion of locally scoped identifier (LSI), it > appears that applications need to be modified to use this. Reading between > the lines of the stack architecture, the actual advantage of using HIP with > LSIs is that the application changes can be restricted to whatever > indication is to be used that the stack is to use HIP, rather than changing > the places that use sockaddrs, etc. But this is not clearly stated here. > > In section 5.1 paragraph 3, the text talks about a connecting client not > specifying a responder identifier (HIP Opportunistic mode) in order to > enable load balancing. I think the text would be helped by an example of > how an initiator might know to do this, rather than just not using HIP. > Also, it would be good if the text was explicit as to whether or not there > was a way to support load balancing / multi servers without either using a > shared identity or sacrificing security by using Opportunistic HIP. > > Given that section 5 is titled "New Stack Architecture", I think it would > be helpful if the section were explicit as to where the HIP logic lives > relative to the IP and UDP/TCP portions of the host stack. This would help > the reader have the right model for interpreting section 6.2 and 8.1. > > Nits/editorial comments: > Section 4.2 third sentence "It is possible to for ..." should be "It is > possible for ..." > > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >
- [Hipsec] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hi… Joel Halpern
- Re: [Hipsec] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Genart last call review of draft-iet… jmh.direct
- Re: [Hipsec] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Genart last call review of draft-iet… Robert Moskowitz