Re: [icnrg] [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-04

[Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors, everybody,

Thank you for your response, Jungha.

I’m okay with the updated I-D.
I’m just wondering what is meant by « five 9s, or five sigmas » in the following sentence of section 4.3. 

	The NRS system may provide a probability (say, five 9s,	
	or five sigmas for instance) that a resolution will be satisfied.

I guess « 99.999% » for the « five 9s », but I don’t understand the notion of sigmas. Sorry.
This is nota blocking point anyway.

Cheers,

  Vincent


> Le 12 avr. 2021 à 10:13, Jungha Hong <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> Dear Vincent,
> 
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this document.
> First of all, I am sorry that it has been quite a long time to address your comments.
> 
> The revised document, draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-05 has been submitted. 
> We tried to address your comments as much as possible. 
> (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-05 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-05>)
> 
> Please find our responses explained in-line below and let us know if anything is unclear.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jungha Hong
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Vincent Roca" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Colin Perkins" <[e-mail]>; "The IRSG" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> Cc: "Vincent Roca" <[e-mail]>;
> Sent: 2020-10-23 (금) 19:41:05 (UTC+09:00)
> Subject: Re: [irsg] IRSG review request draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-04
> 
> Hello Colin, IRSG members and authors,
> 
> Below is my review of draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-04.
> It’s globally clear/well written. I have a few comments though.
> Hope it will be useful.
> 
> Regards,   Vincent
> 
> ——
> This document is globally well written and well documented (many references to research documents and architectural proposals).
> Parts of it are perhaps a bit hard to understand for a newcomer like me, but I guess it provides valuable content for a more informed reader.
> 
> 
> Main points:
> 
> ** Which guarantee? (section 4.3 "Resolution guarantee")
>         The current text of section 4.3 is pretty strong and uses a "must" (in lowercase letters however):
>         "An NRS must ensure that the name resolution would be successful if the name matching content exists in the network."
>         There's a contradiction with section 4.1 about resolution response time, especially if we consider the delay-sensitive scenarios mentioned in 4.1.
>         At a minimum the sentence should be nuanced.
>         But it also raises key questions that are mostly ignored in the current document: is a strong guarantee feasible and is it desirable?
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> We updated the text there to make it more nuanced. We also added the idea of a probabilistic guarantee (as opposed to a MUST guarantee).
> 
> ** Security and privacy considerations
>         The current "Security considerations" section is not satisfying IMHO.
>         Security/privacy is key to any name resolution service: it's the case of DNS, it's the case here also.
>         Although it's common to have a separate section in I-D/RFCs, it also suggests that it's a side consideration. It shouldn't.
>         Since this is a design I-D, security/privacy should be part of the Design considerations section, and the new « 7. Security Considerations » section could refer to it and just provide additional content (e.g., (D)DoS protection).
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> We moved the Security consideration into Section 4.9 Security and privacy and put a pointer to Section 4.9 in Section 7. We changed the headings to comply with the Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability framework (CIA triad).
> 
>         Otherwise, a few comments for current section 7:
>         - It's common to use the CIA triad to structure such security discussions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security#Key_concepts <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security#Key_concepts>).
>         - The term "accessibility" is awkward, it's about access control and strongly related to 7.2 authentication and 7.3 confidentiality.
>           This is why gathering this under "C(onfidentiality)" could help reduce redundancy.
>         - Integrity (of the NRS system, the databases used, the names, etc.) is omitted.
>         - Resiliency is part of availability.
> 
>         I guess privacy should also be part of the Design Considerations. There are overlaps with CIA, but it's broader.
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> We added the word Privacy in the confidentiality section.
> 
> I’m not sure how far it should go (I don’t ask for a complete rewrite), it should at least mentioned, and perhaps a review published somewhere could be referenced?
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> Hopefully, it will be OK since you are not asking for a  complete rewrite.
> 
> Other points:
> 
> ** About use of RFC2119 keywords.
>         [RFC2119] is listed, but there is no reference to it (no section about the compliance to RFC2119 in particular).
>         Is it intended or just an oversight?
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> We added a sentence pointing to RFC2119 at the beginning of section 4. (but with some weasel words as we’re doing considerations, not requirements).
> 
> ** Section 2 (intro):
>         In sentence: "The consumer provides an NRS with a persistent name and the NRS returns a name or locator that can reach a current instance of the requested object."
>         I understand the NRS chooses which route to take for the consumer’s request.
>         I'm not sure it is the intention since 1st sentence of section 2.1 mentions "to return the locators" (plural), and suggests there’s a choice that is to be taken by the consumer between alternative locations.
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> We added some plural in Section 2 intro to be consistent with Section 2.1.
> 
> ** Section 2.4:
>         I find the item "o  Update message overhead:" a bit obscur. I understand the need for an update, but not the impacts on the two NRS.
>         For instance, this is the first place where "name resolution overlay" is mentioned.
>         More generally, although the previous parts was relatively easy to follow, section 2.4 is more obscur for a newcommer.
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> We replaced “name resolution overlay” with “system” and mentioned that it could be an overlay.
> 
> 
> Typos, minor comments:
> 
> [Editor’s response and revision]
> All done.
> 
> ** Section 2 (intro):
>         "to help a consumer to reach a specific piece of information (or named data objects)"
>         I suggest to use singular for coherency: "(or name data object)"
> 
> 
> ** Section 3.1, 1st paragraph.
>         I suggest adding "or" instead of "," since they are opposed, as is already done for the last part of the sentence:
>         "...which can be flat or hierarchical, and human readable or non-readable."
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>