Re: [karp] Comments on draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Thu, 05 December 2013 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: karp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEAE71AE029 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:40:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 AJT68znAT_Jd for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB881AE036 for <karp@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:40:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B49C205C5; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:39:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.suchdamage.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZ3anMqiNzIn; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:39:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-50-136-31-107.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [50.136.31.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:39:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 777C58352D; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:40:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca>
References: <529D667E.6040507@concordia.ca>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:40:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <529D667E.6040507@concordia.ca> (William Atwood's message of "Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:05:02 -0500")
Message-ID: <tsld2lb2wfx.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: KARP Working Group <karp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [karp] Comments on draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table
X-BeenThere: karp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for key management for routing and transport protocols <karp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/karp/>
List-Post: <mailto:karp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp>, <mailto:karp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:40:13 -0000

>>>>> "William" == William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca> writes:

    William> In the spirit of the chairs' plea to read and comment on
    William> the WG documents, I have read the crypto-key-table document
    William> carefully.  Herewith some comments, which hopefully will be
    William> useful to the authors, even this late in the cycle.

Unless directed otherwise by chairs, I will address comments that regard
changes introduced during IESG evaluation.
I will take the other comments as too late.

I will address some of the formatting comments recieved separately,
within the constraints that I have a small window of time available to
get a draft out today and I really want that to happen.
Many of the other issues will be handled by the RFC editor: they are
quite good.
Some are actually more technical than formatting.
I do think a lot of these issues would be good to consider if we ever do
crypto-key-tables BIS.

    William> Section 2, bullet "Interfaces", line 6.  "is specified by
    William> the implementation" It is unclear what implementation is
    William> under discussion here.  The protocol implementation, the
    William> operating system implementation, ???  Interface definitions
    William> are a characteristic that is (as is stated) independent of
    William> the specific protocol, but it is unclear what we should say
    William> that they _do_ depend on.  See also the comment on Section
    William> 4, last paragraph.

    William> Section 2, various bullets.  I have a concern about the use
    William> of phrases such as "the protocol defines" in Section 2.  I
    William> believe that the correct phrasing is "the protocol
    William> specification defines".  If the community agrees, a number
    William> of sentences in various bullets will have to be corrected.

    William> Section 4, para under the bullets, line 2.  "shared among
    William> all protocols on an implementation" Should this be "shared
    William> among all protocols on a device"?  See also the comment on
    William> Section 2, bullet "Interfaces".

    William>   Bill


    William> -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.  tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
    William> Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830
    William> Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering
    William> Concordia University EV 3.185
    William> email:william.atwood@concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve
    William> Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal,
    William> Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
    William> _______________________________________________ karp
    William> mailing list karp@ietf.org
    William> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp