Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-08

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the comments, see below.

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Peter Yee <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
> comment.  For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
>
> (Actually, I'm tardy on this review.  It inexplicably dropped off my radar.
> So deal with these comments when you get around to handling Telechat input
> or AUTH48 or whenever it suits you!  I'm still posting this review as it
> will be needed come the Telechat.)

I don't think it has been scheduled for a Telechat yet so we might as
well resolve these comments now.

> Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-08
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: December 24, 2015
> IETF LC End Date: December 14, 2015
> IESG Telechat date: TBD
>
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> should be fixed before publication. [Ready with nits]
>
> The draft provides a lightweight means to increase the difficulty of certain
> DNS attacks by off-path attackers, but it isn't designed to be the be all
> and end all of DNS security.  It can be deployed incrementally.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Page 14, Section 5.2.4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: It might be useful to
> mention what the examination entails as it would help in understanding the
> 3rd sentence in the paragraph.  There's an implied recalculation of the
> Server Cookie value based on the received Client Cookie and client IP
> address as opposed to a simple lookup of the received value.

I'm not so sure of that. If the server wanted to, it could generate a
random Server Cookie for each {Client Cookie, Client IP} and, in fact,
do a look up.

> Nits:
>
> Page 12, Section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "the the" to just
> "the".

OK.

> Page 13, Section 5.2.2, 2nd paragraph: append "bytes" after "40".

Why after 40 but not after 8 or 16? Seems like me it would be an
improvement to add "bytes" after all three.

> Page 14, Section 5.2.4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the sentence.
> It's redundant with the 1st sentence.

OK.

> Page 15, Section 5.4, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change first "a" to "an".

OK.

> Page 15, Section 5.4, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: change first "a" to "an".

OK.

> Page 17, Section 6, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "indefinitely" to
> "indefinite".

OK.

> Page 21, Section 9, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "WPAv2" to "WPA2"
> (the Wi-Fi Alliance's term).

OK.

> Page 23, Section 10: change "a" to "an".

OK.

> Page 27, Section A.1, 1st sentence: change "An" to "A".

OK.

> Page 29, 1st partial sentence: if you're going to drop beta earlier in the
> section, you might as well give the BIND version number here as well.  It's
> no longer apparent that a beta version was involved.

OK.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]