Re: [Int-dir] Int Area Directorate Review Assignment - draft-ietf-savi-mix-11

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Fri, 07 October 2016 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26081129575 for <int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it-uc3m-es.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 k_l26yDf0_Yk for <int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (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 173FB129557 for <int-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k125so28628680wma.1 for <int-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 05:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0FuNz+hM6avdUG+NhQGQnfUTmJbioEhgAdWEW6KzJ60=; b=iDBdKy4mmrAZAI9/nH4B+A0gLGjJ4+WlusfyTBYLuEzMBBnECDo6OyJOZpJHS1z1hk NQKE7ezTjrnJUqQUr4HqtIqL9IFLeobgW5eZZGCWW7KlO3omiMYAcX84sD46EPnUHoKa R8Hl4sxljq29Lcq9YLAbdBJyJl/sHsD5qpBNhijX7xngiSx2s7UU/3NMAHeYUZbNMMI1 mDyLcVCr2NLeIAuylbm83QjmQMGex4yEx2U7FcHpOMGXkSKPnWR6T5MPgredTW2FndNo xSJQJHh1vSAeDInxgMVNmaCIeNCjoqNwd1spj41TVo8jH/6daWwc9Y8KVA1gR/IMuwqy vYKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date :in-reply-to:references:organization:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0FuNz+hM6avdUG+NhQGQnfUTmJbioEhgAdWEW6KzJ60=; b=a2lHVNOgLnMgRaHNCqg/asrRMawGg/z6t09+oNX01OJdq0gmk9j0wGJxv/9l1dbZ3Z VriJAqwdUUKNc28oatMc3Ncd1l2mg7Gk0+OVdF6NW4CxIPDfkqMVREq8IF1l5Zk+T5OX aPkbrknLeNrG/cgNo2aOZjrJ/MpQKw+kSfXpu4ZbSfT9Nd03doJ8eS7GwwWkwBIwtfCK Z/qByQDeJnHJEAZ1RYe1Kw+H7UPG9GmdQ4/Kx3MvyNaGftYe379lBeq19JbnoEx48AVL UHhf6nAjgTcliO/go3q14Tmm3l1NaNQUwsURYFWpjTBAhuKUgYoxrp+/ZckmhvikQAYb jUbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rl1OxO8JPLh4peoc4IVxAomTOiaDoLo5iHFM8mbI9oN3N8tDqsybw8FVdY8O1naGyLx
X-Received: by 10.28.229.149 with SMTP id c143mr11418216wmh.95.1475842168515; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:720:410:1010:2247:47ff:fedb:3d7e? ([2001:720:410:1010:2247:47ff:fedb:3d7e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a84sm2742879wme.6.2016.10.07.05.09.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 07 Oct 2016 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1475842167.5581.23.camel@it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>, int-dir@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:09:27 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20161007115011.GX379151@eidolon>
References: <20161007115011.GX379151@eidolon>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/dVTUEGcsHC2hCYOpTpn_ToYNUrA>
Cc: draft-ietf-savi-mix@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Int Area Directorate Review Assignment - draft-ietf-savi-mix-11
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 12:09:33 -0000

Thanks a lot David for the review!

CCing authors of the draft so they can take into account your comments.

Kind regards,

Carlos

On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 13:50 +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> [apologies for the delay, got some interference from a release
> cycle...]
> 
> Apart from some typos (which I think the RFC editors will fix?), my
> review is the following:
> 
> - the draft has no privacy consideration section.  It should have
> one,
>   pointing out the following:
> 
>   "When implementing multiple SAVI methods, privacy considerations of
>    all methods apply cumulatively.  In addition, there is a minor
>    additional loss of privacy in that the SAVI device can correlate
>    information from different SAVI methods."
> 
>   (optionally: "This additional loss of privacy is considered
>   miniscule.", though that's just my personal opinion.)
> 
> - in section 6.1.2.2., on "responding to the DAD message", it would
> be
>   useful to state that the DAD message should be discarded and not
>   forwarded.  (Forwarding it may cause other SAVI devices to send
>   additional defense NAs.)  I believe this is the intent, but it's
> not
>   quite obvious.  Maybe I'm also misunderstanding something there?
> 
> - also in section 6.1.2.2., a suggestion to ratelimit (or, in
> general,
>   apply precautions) defense NAs in order to reduce security threats
> is
>   probably a good idea.  The problem I see there is that it's newly
>   specified behaviour that just needs to be pointed out as requiring
> the
>   same approach as the individual SAVI methods.
> 
> - lastly, it could be pointed out that applying SAVI-MIX in an
>   inconsistent way can well break one's network.  Obvious case of
> user
>   stupidity, but well...
> 
> All in all I believe the draft is in good shape and should proceed
> with
> minor edits.
> 
> Hope this is useful,
> 
> -David
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
> wrote:
> > 
> > You are next up on the Int Area Directorate review assignment queue
> > and the Int ADs have requested a review of draft-ietf-savi-mix-
> > 11 (see 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-savi-mix-11).
> [...]
> _______________________________________________
> Int-dir mailing list
> Int-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir