[Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-dance-architecture-06

Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 17 July 2024 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.2.27] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9265C14F6BC; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.19.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172122345551.346057.3673594469094493489@dt-datatracker-6fbcf4599b-975km>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 06:37:35 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: P7WQIWDBAEHOLL3AWMETBQH6RD3S4QCT
X-Message-ID-Hash: P7WQIWDBAEHOLL3AWMETBQH6RD3S4QCT
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: dance@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dance-architecture.all@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Subject: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-dance-architecture-06
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/mcigCp0rlT5BEpsEuCYBfj0pp70>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:iot-directorate-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:iot-directorate-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iot-directorate-leave@ietf.org>

Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Not Ready

IoT directorate Review of draft-ietf-dance-architecture-06
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Date: 17 July 2024

Summary:

The document describes an architecture that defines terminology, interaction,
and authentication patterns related to the use of DANE DNS records for TLS
client and messaging peer identity within the context of existing object
security and TLS-based protocols.

I have some comments and questions as follows:

1- Section 2, How to Dance with Entity: "... delegates many details of how
DANCE can be used..."  -> It would be nice to add examples of which details,
e.g. "...details such as protocol-specific configurations, security mechanisms,
and interoperability considerations..."

2- Section 2, Identity provisioning: "... in some circumstances, a
manufacturer..."  -> Could examples of these circumstances be added? For
instance, "examples include manufacturer-initiated key generation.

3- Section 2, Suggestion to complete what it seems to be an open topic: "Is the
security domain defined by how broadly the identity is recognized, or by the
breadth of the application or network access policy?

4- Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.1.1: Suggestion to complete the TBD values with
further description where to find them.

5- Section 5.4: Suggestion to add further explanation where states: "Further
work has do be done in this area". Is it related with the following comment of
AW?

6- Section 5.4.1, Suggestion to Improve this section based on the comment of
OEJ.

7- Question, Section 3: Does it make sense to add broadcasting as a
communication pattern?

8- Question: What about to apply DANE DNS to Federated Identity Management?

9- Based on github, 11 issues are still open:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dance/draft-dance-architecture/issues

Nits:

- Section 4.1.9.1.: tbe --> the

- The terms "Dance" and "DANCE" are used in the text. It would be preferable to
use a consistent form throughout the document.

Thanks for this document,

Ines.