Re: draft-noisternig-ipdvb-sec-ext-00.txt (Editorial NiTs)

Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Sun, 05 July 2009 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031B73A69C8 for <ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 01:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-31yrU-9h8F for <ietfarch-ipdvb-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 01:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841703A69B5 for <ipdvb-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 01:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n65828tf010664 for <ipdvb-subscribed-users@dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:02:08 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id n65828Dk010663 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:02:08 +0100 (BST)
X-Authentication-Warning: dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk: majordomo.lists set sender to owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk using -f
Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-Laptop-6.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n6581bIS010643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:01:38 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4A505DE1.80009@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:01:37 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
CC: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk, H.Cruickshank@surrey.ac.uk, mnoist@cosy.sbg.ac.at, Prashant Pillai <P.Pillai@Bradford.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: draft-noisternig-ipdvb-sec-ext-00.txt (Editorial NiTs)
References: <1244702672.4a30a7d0b5839@webmail.brad.ac.uk> <4A50542A.20001@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4A50542A.20001@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
Sender: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk
X-ERG-MailScanner-From: owner-ipdvb@erg.abdn.ac.uk

Authors, I dent some comments and questions on the draft in a previous 
email. This email contains a few minor comments on editorial issues, 
that may improve the next version of this draft.

Best wishes,

Gorry

---
/Another feature provided is called identity protection./
- This reads oddly, I suggest something like:
/The method also provides identity protection./
---
/processing continues as usually/
- this should be /continues with the usual processing/, although it 
would be better to also cite a reference to indicate what this is.

---
/On securing the ULE SNDUs, security is provided at the link layer as
    opposed to existing higher-layer mechanisms like IPsec [8] or TLS
    [11]. This allows them to be used in/
- This reads oddly. Is it possible to say something like:
/This document provides security for ULE SNDUs at the link layer, iin 
contrast to higher-layer mechanisms, such as IPsec [8] or TLS
[11]. This design allows higher-layer mechanisms to be used in/
---
/The security extension may use and benefit f/
- This isn't quite so, you would would need to update these mechanisms, 
a forward reference to the appropriate section where this is discussed.
---
/The ULE security extension is designed to cope with both bi-
    directional and unidirectional links, as well as unicast and
    multicast settings./
- Could you replace /to cope with/ by /for/
- This would be a good place to identify the framework [RFC 4259]
---
Please add abbreviations:
GSE
VPN
SID
etc.
---
/Some of the main security services
    (mandatory or optional) that the security extension for ULE aims to
    provide are:/
- delete /aims to provide/? and say /provides/?
---
/even if it got hold of the transmitted data./
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Can you rephrase in more formal English?
---
/arguably the most important step on providing/
- Is it possible to say something like:
/an important step in providing/
---
/While one
       solution for this is to use temporary addresses....
- is this text needed? (see other comments).
---
Page 6:
/digital signatures, may be used in order to assure source/
- I misread this. I don't think this talks about ordering, and so it 
would be better in this case to remove /in order/.
---
/ will not be able to derive a correct one./
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- True, it will be statistically hard, bit not impossible.
---
Page 7:
/received data is recent/
                ^^^^^^^^^
- could this be better phrased?
---
Page 8:
/After the ULE base header, the security extension header follows./
- May be better as:
/The security extension header follows the ULE base header./
---
Page 11:
/ In order to support
    shared SAs permitting bi-directional communication, an SAD should/
- May be better as:
/ To support shared SAs for bi-directional communication, an SAD should/
---
/ Each set of Security Parameters contains information about:/
- May be better as:
/ Each set of Security Parameters contains:/
----
/no security services at all,/
                       ^^^^^^
- delete /at all/?
---
/Note that we do not describe/
- better, perhaps as:
/This document does not describe/
---
/, as this is regarded implementation specific details./
- better, perhaps as:
/. This is regarded as implementation-specific detail./
---
Section 7.3:
/ Such protocol should/
       ^
- insert /a/.
---
/Link-level security is commonly used in broadcast/radio links to
    supplement end-to-end security, and may not be treated as a
    substitute./
- A substitute for what?
---
/A device may receive data from different MPEG-2
    multiplexes, which both may allocate PID values independently./
- cite reference to another RFC?

---
References:

Some references are uncited, e.g. [5].

It may be helpful to consider citing [10] and [4] as informational 
background to issues they consider. These are already published and 
citing them where appropriate would help the reader understand issues 
that have already been discussed.

---

Finally,
The following word appears in several place: /Illegitimate/ This has 
some additional meanings that are not intended here - could you replace 
by unauthoried or unintended or something similar?