Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 03 February 2015 16:24 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D851A1A5D; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:24:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 B3NeRPdtvTvR; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704C41A1A4E; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1AC2CC5D; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:24:29 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwZZ1jYBThnW; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:24:28 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C302CC4D; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 18:24:28 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_48451678-BF7D-4FDE-8950-8AC5880560E3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <015601d036d9$26c80430$74580c90$@akayla.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:24:25 +0200
Message-Id: <3B0069C4-1621-4416-9B84-4763B98071C2@piuha.net>
References: <015601d036d9$26c80430$74580c90$@akayla.com>
To: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RqmmNKNuHFeqYG7cgvC7AGnRQf0>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework.all@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:24:33 -0000
Thanks for the review, Peter! I would be interested in hearing an answer at least with regards to the following items: > Section 7.2: Is the "Delete" operation meant to be atomic? Should that be > specified in that section? > > Section 9.7: this section discusses how the "transport protocol" provides > connection protection services and then says that therefore a > man-in-the-middle attack is possible. If that's the case, then the > "transport protocol" is not (adequately) providing connection protection. > And without connection protection, a man-in-the-middle attack would of > course be possible, so saying that because there is connection protection, a > man-in-the-middle attack is therefore possible seems misleading. In both cases I too was left wondering what the text actually meant. Jari