[icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 11 August 2020 02:11 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>
Cc: draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g@ietf.org, icnrg-chairs@ietf.org, icnrg@irtf.org, David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net>, daveoran@orandom.net
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <159711187831.5428.15991339421585602152@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:11:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/9fwueV8m1GTprMlpAVw2VG9-aVg>
Subject: [icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-08: Yes

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.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g/



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

Thanks for doing this work. I like it, and it's well-written.

I have a couple of comments you might take into account.

"Dual stack IP or ICN" seems to be an unfortunate choice of terms - "dual
stack" is used to refer to "IP or ICN", but that's confusing, and even more
confusing when it's used for "Dual stack IP (IPv4/IPv6) or ICN", which I guess
should be read as nested "Dual stack (Dual stack (IP (IPv4/IPv6)) or ICN)",
since both IPv4/IPv6 and the combination of IP or ICN are "dual stacks". Is
there any other term you could use that wouldn't collide with a term that's
been in wide use for at least 25 years (it's in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1933)?

This text

   LTE uses IP transport in its mobile backhaul (between eNodeB and core
   network).  In case of provider-owned backhaul, it may not be
   necessary to implement any security mechanisms because the entire IP
   transport is owned by service provider.  Deployment of security
   gateways and encryption might be necessary when IP transport is
   provided by other provider as shared media or leased lines.

seems awfully optimistic in 2020. Even if true, I'd have concerns about saying
it out loud - I was getting objections to similar text in the early 2000s.

Fortunately, I think you can drop the second and third sentences with no lack
of coherence, and no one with a 4G/LTE network is going to be reading this
document to find out how to secure their IP networks, anyway.

Do the right thing, of course.

[icnrg] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-irtf-icnrg-… Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker