RE: Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-05
Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com> Sun, 27 August 2017 10:17 UTC
Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D438F1320D8; Sun, 27 Aug 2017 03:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jyQkwZ6oFCYA; Sun, 27 Aug 2017 03:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 900CC1321ED; Sun, 27 Aug 2017 03:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.30.72.56 (EHLO lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.30.72.56]) by dggrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.4.6-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AUG93414; Sun, 27 Aug 2017 18:17:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Sun, 27 Aug 2017 07:33:24 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.138]) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.214]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:33:17 +0800
From: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: "Brian Weis (bew)" <bew@cisco.com>, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
CC: "draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack.all@ietf.org" <draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack.all@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-05
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-05
Thread-Index: AQHS7lLEWzV9+32PME2mgt0Y86IjKaJjlp+AgDSJS9A=
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 06:33:16 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7FFDBC@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <149846423732.31797.4914828028458689510@ietfa.amsl.com> <E925AA3C-78E8-4081-9FC7-D2C46725A8F3@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E925AA3C-78E8-4081-9FC7-D2C46725A8F3@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.202.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7FFDBCDGGEMM506MBXchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090203.59A29C46.0048, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.3.138, so=2014-11-16 11:51:01, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 4598f911dd54b928e4f3521013307ce3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yUhdrWlWIQpZeiSS-HP6tOq1ip4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:17:50 -0000
Hi Brian, Thanks OK now Roni From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Weis (bew) Sent: יום ב 24 יולי 2017 19:18 To: Roni Even Cc: draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack.all@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-05 Hi Roni, Thanks for your helpful review. On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:03 AM, Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com<mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>> wrote: Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Almost Ready 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 comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2017-06-26 IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-17 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as standard track document Major issues: Minor issues: 1. In section 2 it says "A GM receiving the KEK_ACK_REQUESTED attribute can choose to ignore it, thus appearing as if it does not support the KEK_ACK_REQUESTED attribute.". Any reason for the GM to ignore the message? 2. In section 4 and section 6 it says the the GM SHOULD send an acknowledgement message. Is there a case when the GM should not send and if not why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? After conferring, the authors believe that the real reason for a GM to ignore KEK_ACK_REQUESTED is because they do not support it. As such, we’ve adjusted the wording in several places to say this. And with that wording it makes sense for the SHOULD to become a MUST. 3. In section 6 "A non-receipt of an Acknowledgement is an indication that a GM is either unable or unwilling to respond". What about if the Acknowledgement message was lost? Any reliability procedure? We’ve clarified that reliability is most likely to come from transmitting the GROUPKEY-PUSH message several times. This comes from a recommendation in RFC 4046, and we’ve made this more explicit. The GCKS MAY be configured with additional policy actions such as transmitting the GROUPKEY-PUSH message several times in a short period of time (as suggested in [RFC4046]), which mitigates a packet loss of either the GROUPKEY-PUSH message or an Acknowledgement message. Nits/editorial comments: 1. In section 6 "Also a GM may be willing or able to respond with an GROUPKEY-PUSH ACK " . I cannot parse this sentence in the context of the section There was a “not” missing. The sentence now reads Also a GM may not be able to respond with an GROUPKEY-PUSH ACK. Let us know if these don’t sufficiently address your points. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Weis Security, CSG, Cisco Systems Telephone: +1 408 526 4796 Email: bew@cisco.com<mailto:bew@cisco.com>
- Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-… Roni Even
- Re: Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-re… Brian Weis (bew)
- RE: Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-re… Roni Even