Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis

Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 May 2015 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8F61A89BB for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Q0cHtDiyXVWY for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com (mail-yk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]) (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 A3F271A89FC for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykep21 with SMTP id p21so47187850yke.3 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KnTwq5Whwcc14kEQIdGVS8sumsg4cDA+UruBBzPqwkk=; b=y+g6F04LtjF7jLb8kK6Vzix8iGrdw4x9eEsSuEXWVRBPiRg73hioEME3dlf9iSBwLA s5DuwLigHRPGgg7avBc8m9SP6IydEe4V4BIrlPefuA3XBYuMXf9XKl55Xtte0+phLAz0 U8dQ05rVZfC5urJx3m6cm9rv5DJBEcuMNLiQ88keAVN+fb6zaitRiaBZbZt2WjTXqB4d BOO0gR5maCz2sM6KUeoRDpYXX+GiS0+XUCo9/wRQWRk12ysI7CueOlG0tNMQGSXxLFSw nGylb3Gu0tDejv91jWeju9X3uv9UY5YcX85Cc67OnX3zft7f9IWkq+smbcsXVVqgQ5pZ JYrQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.26.43 with SMTP id b31mr12632610yha.53.1430870972023; Tue, 05 May 2015 17:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.129.137.134 with HTTP; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com>
References: <5530E4C1.8070509@ericsson.com> <554780D0.9070301@tomh.org> <5548CCD5.9010108@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:09:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE_dhjvYAPuiqj+xkVqiWugPpYz+mFV+nhTeRo7PYm5AnNFbPA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/neKVm9j8hMkiPd6JxxLn4bjRUqg>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 06 May 2015 00:09:35 -0000

Thanks for the review Tom, I will address your WGLC comments ASAP.

--julien

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
<Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Tom.
>
> Julien, could you please look into Tom's comments and address them in a
> new revision of the draft?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 04/05/2015 5:23 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>> On 04/17/2015 03:47 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to start a WGLC on the following draft. This WGLC will end
>>> on May 4th:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis/
>>>
>>> Please, send your comments to this list.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>
>> I had a fresh read of this specification and have the following comments.
>>
>> (possibly) technical
>> --------------------
>>
>> RFC 7401 specifies ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW as separate algorithm types, but
>> this document only mentions ECDSA.  For alignment with RFC 7401, I
>> suggest to replace references to "ECDSA" with "ECDSA and ECDSA_LOW" as
>> appropriate (it seems to me that they can reuse the same codepoint).
>>
>> I could not find discussion about TTL considerations; are there any?  If
>> there are no special considerations about TTL, caching, and how records
>> may be updated, perhaps it would be helpful to state this (and possibly
>> reference the specification that describes how to expire resource records).
>>
>> The document doesn't seem to have any discussion of what to do when a
>> host wants to register more than one host identity.  I suggest something
>> along the lines of "there may be multiple HIP RRs associated with a
>> single name.  It is outside the scope of this specification as to how a
>> host chooses from between multiple RRs when more than one is returned.
>> The RVS information may be copied and aligned across multiple RRs, or
>> may be different for each one; a host SHOULD check that the RVS used is
>> associated with the HI being used, when multiple choices are present."
>>
>> editorial
>> ---------
>>
>> IANA considerations could be made more explicit about exactly what we
>> are requesting IANA to do; e.g., "the reference to the RR type code
>> should be updated from RFC 5205 to this specification."  and "this
>> document requests that IANA allocate a new codepoint for 'ECDSA and
>> ECDSA_LOW' in the existing registry for IPSECKEY RR."
>>
>> Suggest to replace "Singly" with "Single" and "degenerated" with
>> "degenerate".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec