Re: [Hipsec] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> Mon, 05 March 2018 08:57 UTC
Return-Path: <miika.komu@ericsson.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 142A812D893 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 00:57:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 2GgdJGf0DCTA for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 00:57:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (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 CAE7212DA19 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 00:57:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1520240229; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=FQkJ1K6WNLV2V9oEeF7j2u3vD1NLuO145033ry3ruC0=; b=FSvpt+tHA+q3oweMr3oq6NsKjiy9JKXOefODMuWIHJNuZ8erT4qawif0F0jPik1x 3HS8UTuGihWOXPWW7vQ379Yk55O1XQq7xxbV2LO0dx+JxgpiEjHyS6c6Rn2oQtWZ PR8uOVkVBSktV8YMfo9kC09N2+nXl76eDGbLGy2zhYg=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-44ba69c000002d5f-ba-5a9d066441e4
Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.72]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0F.B3.11615.4660D9A5; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:57:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.50.242] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.352.0; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:56:25 +0100
To: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal.all@ietf.org>
References: <151965127608.31482.7946240138786040730@ietfa.amsl.com> <07dbd7e2-ad0b-8483-e181-b911f3b4a7ba@ericsson.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD869DEA@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Message-ID: <cf1af36c-2a8a-a570-58c2-51d35e91155a@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 10:56:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD869DEA@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7h24q29wog2MfuSw2nd7DanH11WcW i6mLJjNbPNs4n8Xibzuzxadj51kc2Dx2zrrL7tFy5C2rx5IlP5kCmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4 Mm6+WcBe8FmtYvmcs4wNjCfluhg5OCQETCQ696p3MXJxCAkcZpT4Om0rO4SzmlHi+tM9rF2M nBzCAlESWw8+ArNFBMolFh5oZwIpYhbYzCjxsvM8C1z7ukd9bCBVbAJaEqvuXGcGsfkFJCU2 NOxmBlnHK2AvsXtfKEiYRUBF4vnsu0wgtqhAhETnyvksIDavgKDEyZlPwGxOgRCJzZcnsIPY zAIWEjPnn2eEsMUlbj2ZzwRhy0tsfzsHbLwQ0MyLx4InMArNQjJpFpLuWUi6ZyHpXsDIsopR tDi1OCk33chYL7UoM7m4OD9PLy+1ZBMjMB4ObvmtuoPx8hvHQ4wCHIxKPLwH/s6JEmJNLCuu zD3EKMHBrCTCW/YZKMSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZx3jnB7lJBAemJJanZqakFqEUyW iYNTqoFRNmMCk8QvuRMiy1iTrXVvd3TYq3tfPS60Um5uJbdPgdKVTud7Jq6Lgx7aT1H6fJOP 4Zaz78aoWfJ5u8NVjCL+aFWeWiU94e8f3ru2azq0eSPFvzA2nONhkC2OLtVhXOi0s5g9S8fz 2rsnK6QZ311+1DVj08N6PtNfNT97RDYaelmuWPrJj02JpTgj0VCLuag4EQAf9eT/gwIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/wXIE-g9OxkbaY3mnKUnQpnJ2Qq0>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27
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: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 08:57:21 -0000
Hi Roni, sorry, I read your email a bit too late today. I was too trigger happy and posted a new version... I thought it would be good to avoid blocking IANA with some missing and incorrect details. On 03/04/2018 09:22 AM, Roni Even (A) wrote: > Hi Miika, > All your responses are OK with me. > > As for posting a new version, I think it will be good to submit one with all the changes that came in the IETF LC > > Roni > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Miika Komu > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 4:13 PM > To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: hipsec@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal.all@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-27 > > Hi Roni, > > thanks for the detailed review! My comments are below. > > On 02/26/2018 03:21 PM, Roni Even wrote: >> Reviewer: Roni Even >> Review result: Almost Ready >> >> 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-native-nat-traversal-?? >> Reviewer: Roni Even >> Review Date: 2018-02-26 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: >> The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC >> >> Major issues: >> >> Minor issues: >> >> 1. in section 4.2 "Gathering of candidates MAY also be performed by >> other means than described in this section. For example, the candidates could be >> gathered as specified in Section 4.2 of [RFC5770] if STUN servers are >> available, or if the host has just a single interface and no STUN orData >> Relay Server are available." I did not see this a different ways since >> section 3 says "The hosts use either Control Relay Servers or Data Relay >> Servers (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers) for >> gathering the candidates." so STUN is mentioned also here. > > I suggest to remove the remark in parenthesis (or other infrastructure including STUN or TURN servers). Does this solve the issue? > > [Roni] Yes > >> 2. In section 4.6.2 "The connectivity check messages MUST be paced by >> the Ta value negotiated during the base exchange as described in >> Section 4.4. If neither one of the hosts announced a minimum pacing >> value, a value of 20 ms SHOULD be used." in section 4.4 the default value is 50 ms? > > Good catch! I double checked this from the ICE spec, which defaults also to 50 ms. So, I change the value to 50 ms also in section 4.6.2. > [Roni] OK > >> 3. in section 5.4 what about "ICE-STUN-UDP 2" ; I assume it is not >> relevant but this is also the IANA registeration > > I think it makes sense to add the missing one as you suggest, but omit it from the IANA registration since it is already registered for RFC5770. > [Roni] OK > >> 4. In section 5.5 "The TRANSACTION_PACING is a new parameter" it is >> not new it is in RFC5770 > > You're right, I'll change this. > [Roni]OK > >> 5. In section 5.10 "SERVER_REFLEXIVE_CANDIDATE_ALLOCATION_FAILED 63" >> is the only new one. this also relates to section 7 that says that all >> error values in section 5.10 are new while the rest are in RFC5770. >> Also there is no mention in section 7 of which registry is used for the error values. > > Good catch, I'll correct these and add the IANA registry. > > [Roni]OK > >> Nits/editorial comments: >> 1. Expand SPI and LSI when first appear in the document >> >> 2. in section 2 "the base of an candidate" should be "a candidate" >> >> 3. In section 3 "so it is the Initiator may also have registered to a >> Control and/or Data Relay Server" maybe "so the Initiator may also >> need to register to a Control and/or Data Relay Server" >> >> 4. In section 4.2 "However, it is RECOMMENDED that a Data Relay Client >> registers a new server reflexive candidate for each its peer for the >> reasons described" maybe "for each of its..." > > Thanks for spotting these, will fix as suggested. > >> 5. In section 4.2 I could not parse the sentence "where Ta is the >> value used for Ta is the value used for the" > > Should be "where Ta is the value used for the"... > >> 6. in section 4.6 "as defined in section in 6.7 in [RFC7401]:" change >> to "as defined in section 6.7 in [RFC7401]:" > > Will fix this too. > > Should I post a new version with the suggested changes? > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >