Re: [ipwave] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-47

Hi Alissa,

Thank you for your review. However, I have updated the draft and now it's
in -49 reflecting previous comments.

Best regards
Nabil Benamar
-------------------
نبيل بنعمرو

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:29 PM Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

> Roni, thanks for your review. Alex, Nabil, thanks for your responses. I
> entered a DISCUSS ballot to try to get more clarity about the relationship
> between MAC address changes and IID changes, among other things.
>
> Alissa
>
> > On Jul 4, 2019, at 2:05 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > Review result: Ready with Issues
> >
> > 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 wait for direction from your
> > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> >
> > For more information, please see the FAQ at
> >
> > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-47
> > Reviewer: Roni Even
> > Review Date: 2019-07-03
> > IETF LC End Date: None
> > IESG Telechat date: 2019-07-11
> >
> > Summary:
> > The document is ready to be published as a standard track RFC with an
> issue
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > this is about my previous comment.
> > The text in section 5.1 "A vehicle embarking  an IP-OBU whose egress
> interface
> > is 802.11-OCB may expose itself to  eavesdropping and subsequent
> correlation of
> > data; this may reveal data considered private by the vehicle owner;
> there is a
> > risk of being tracked.  In outdoors public environments, where vehicles
> > typically circulate, the privacy risks are more important than in indoors
> > settings." and "there is a strong necessity to use protection tools
> such  as
> > dynamically changing MAC addresses"
> > so even though there are privacy concerns there is no normative text
> saying
> > that some method is needed. "strong necessity" is not normative .
> >
> > A new sentence was added to section 5.1 "An example of change policy is
> to
> > change the MAC address of the OCB interface each time the system boots
> up"
> >
> > I got more confused by section 5.2 text "The policy dictating when the
> MAC
> > address is changed on the 802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined."
> >
> > So what I got from section 5.1 and 5.2 is that protection tools to
> address
> > privacy concern are needed but without any normative text.  Dynamic
> changing
> > of MAC address is an option, no other option is mentioned.  Example for
> when to
> > change MAC address is on system boot and the policy when to change MAC
> address
> > is to be determined.
> >
> > To summarize what the document currently says is that privacy risks are
> more
> > important for outdoor public environment and it is left for
> implementations to
> > decide if and how to address it.
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > Gen-art@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>