Re: [icnrg] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-03.txt

Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu> Mon, 08 July 2019 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049AC120445 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=email-arizona-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.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 d2ryR9RRtzhl for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com (mail-ot1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) (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 8D411120395 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 10:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id l15so17019192otn.9 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 10:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=email-arizona-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xEV0CM0PPCCswKPuNaPuYNdWQCQ6UUbDNLSk8r2AKcM=; b=MmLdwDegKwl3Eg+Oh91nv/RnzjC6ZrqxxaYnwViKXjpcXU+u/1C0LHd5204Hnnx48b 69iOHy0vqH2UwG2uMqvZYAfEJkI55rmOyUG2Egja9hwxTWpCCPUMqpS7wR5t7PKII1Ii dDOYqe9DcklnPC6EcSJfO0fNiIzg0yc6h+IOoPKKJjuqj2cDKs8uUMkzgFl9YRaC0GlA C0M5PVCQxL1rnbvuZHhVwZVmIVgxG8NthB1hmnDIx9v5JPWQozc4AmkOvrh/OXhd/JHw QdYNTaU+AGaq0vbvL5hRt6d0XBR4rgVr09WUE33SFZQoh5J5R3Vxkn7bHt00qLBjckvG N+Qw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xEV0CM0PPCCswKPuNaPuYNdWQCQ6UUbDNLSk8r2AKcM=; b=KEUUyDTysSpvmpqYOKf2R2ApSDRPTZNvY9paZBPyp2vpc1sJD6Tj+LY47W/5p2DgmC 1p+JShxscqjTAVtCtO94l1FroAG+UHtzGOY53tp9bGRbPt+uu57tTy5udbaGCoPQ8iym Pmu/qu4fkl62d7kf+pKu3mfwHiutxleTmLQRWFWRN9zCmUhq6ADVyybs5AlVMc6Ch3ej Fr2CZb4AMcyJRADm/Os5uu7UpAspx6Whd55k4UyaYc7ZPHiSHxCJl7aTUqd5tpsBdPVo F7vvgSy5WukpQbR6sjaHC/VKXmBQL8BSugQBbn59VvsG1Q/WSYK8u09s8fmABRqcWGq0 G7IQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXbEw/WFLjZL/taOIgPG1eKqLkdLPY2ycDCuzXBmhpH/Lg2vyqX gVgRp4j1eW6OAj2Oq/aBZNjZsRKR5KBsnDUvS8+k
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwIOOYkfxVjvhv4k3tdyfk7wmMrOpLnIXDFykgOwDMy2FHvq9wF1K9aTsE/Rj/ciKEIeTtpQ0kYDtnFYU/D8ao=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6385:: with SMTP id w5mr14411064otk.227.1562607430649; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 10:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156260393493.1051.11242685769343831174@ietfa.amsl.com> <8736jg4gr2.fsf@gundogan.net>
In-Reply-To: <8736jg4gr2.fsf@gundogan.net>
From: Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 13:36:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOFH+OYi+fb7tM5TvLgwb3noY2=zEvTsUeWnTnoFOgL5-crNsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cenk Gündoğan <mail=2Bietf=40gundogan.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "icnrg@irtf.org" <icnrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d46fff058d2ee45f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/9u0_3JsUUe2s9kOmhryUhq2U4FQ>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-03.txt
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 17:37:34 -0000

Hi Cenk

I only read section 5 regarding NDN packet compression.


Section 5.2 says "a length of 0 marks the end of the compressed Name TLV".
However, it is valid to have a NameComponent whose TLV-LENGTH is zero.


Section 5.3.2 step 2 says "all NameComponents are expected to be of type
GenericNameComponent", while Figure 13 defines a "DIG" flag that permits a
NameComponent type other than GenericNameComponent.


I feel concerned about the direction of "all NameComponents are expected to
be of type GenericNameComponent".
Typed name components are designed to improve the expressiveness of names.
In IoT environment, TimestampNameComponent and SequenceNumberNameComponent
are widely used. Not supporting them limits the usefulness of your protocol.


Section 5.3.2 Figure 12 shows the TLV-VALUE of ForwardingHint is not
further compressed. This is a missed opportunity, because the
ForwardingHint contains several names that can be effectively compressed.
Likewise, Section 5.4.2 Figure 15 could have compressed the name enclosed
in SignatureInfo.


Section 5.3.2 is incompatible with current version of NDN packet format.
Recent updates to NDN packet format specification include:

   - rename Parameters to ApplicationParameters
   - require ParametersSha256DigestComponent whenever the
   ApplicationParameters element is present
   - define Signed Interest

Figure 13 still mentions "Parameters TLV", but Parameters element is no
longer present in NDN packet format as it has been renamed.
Furthermore, step 2 mandates that a Name with a component other than
GenericNameComponent cannot be compressed. This implies every Interest
having ApplicationParameters or InterestSignature cannot be compressed,
since they would trigger the inclusion of a
ParametersSha256DigestComponent. Consequently, "PRM L PRM V" in Figure 12
and "PRM" in Figure 13 will never be used.


Section 5.4.2 Figure 16 has a "DIG" flag that does not make sense.
ImplicitSha256DigestComponent can only appear at the end of Interest name.
It can never appear in a Data name.


Section 5.4.2 Figure 16 has a "CON" flag that, when set to 1, means "Type
field is removed from the compressed message". This conflicts with Figure
15 that shows the TLV-LENGTH of ContentType element is also removed.
It's unclear how the TLV-LENGTH of ContentType element is expressed. One
solution is to use the same encoding as Section 5.1, and perform
compression only if ContentType TLV-VALUE were encoded as a
nonNegativeInteger of minimum length (note that nonNegativeInteger
specification generally does not require minimum length encoding).
Also, the presentation of Figure 15 is confusing in that it does not
distinguish whether a "V" is in original format (such as CONT V and SVal V)
or a transformed format (such as Name V or FrPr V). I'd suggest using Vu to
indicate original/uncompressed TLV-VALUE and Vc to indicate
transformed/compressed format.


Finally, Section 5 does not consider the guidelines in NDN packet format
"Considerations for Evolvability of TLV-Based Encoding" section.
If a packet contains unrecognized non-critical TLV element, it cannot be
compressed without these elements, or you'll break the security envelope.


P.S. https is now available for named-data.net website. You can update your
citation to use https.

Yours, Junxiao

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:46 PM Cenk Gündoğan <mail=2Bietf=
40gundogan.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Dear ICNRG,
>
> we have submitted a new version of the ICN LoWPAN document including the
> following minor changes (besides editorial improvements):
>
> 1. we previously allocated 2 octets for a Time TLV, we went back to 1
>    octet as published in RFC-5497
>
> 2. we simplified the NDN Interest/Data compression for TLVs that use the
>    TimeTLV: InterestLifetime + FreshnessPeriod
>
> As this document is about ready for RG last call, we urge for additional
> reviews and comments.
>
> Regards,
> Cenk
>
> On Mon, Jul 08 2019 at 18:38 +0200, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan/
> >
> > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-03
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-03
>
>