[karp] Comments on draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table
William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca> Tue, 03 December 2013 05:04 UTC
Return-Path: <william.atwood@concordia.ca>
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 9B5EB1AE033 for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:04:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 oJprRy_bsYRi for <karp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:04:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4A51ADFA1 for <karp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@poise.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.209]) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from william.atwood@concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id rB354mm6006589 for <karp@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 00:04:48 -0500
Message-ID: <529D667E.6040507@concordia.ca>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:05:02 -0500
From: William Atwood <william.atwood@concordia.ca>
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KARP Working Group <karp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2013/12/03 00:04:48 EST
Subject: [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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:04:54 -0000
In the spirit of the chairs' plea to read and comment on the WG documents, I have read the crypto-key-table document carefully. Herewith some comments, which hopefully will be useful to the authors, even this late in the cycle. I have also made a number of comments on formatting and grammatical issues directly to the authors. Note that I will use the abbreviation CKT to stand for the phrase "crypto key table". Technical comments I am perfectly at ease with the restriction of this document to the case of routing protocols, rather than general security protocols. KARP's mandate is restricted to routing protocols, so a solution specific to routing protocols is appropriate. Section 1, para 1, line 14. "should be used" -> "MUST be used" (Since this document is on the standards track, and since this uniformity of presentation is a key requirement for the CKT, I believe that we have to require MUST here.) Section 2, bullet "Interfaces", line 6. "is specified by the implementation" It is unclear what implementation is under discussion here. The protocol implementation, the operating system implementation, ??? Interface definitions are a characteristic that is (as is stated) independent of the specific protocol, but it is unclear what we should say that they _do_ depend on. See also the comment on Section 4, last paragraph. Section 2, bullet "Protocol", line 1. Upon reading the phrase "single security protocol" in this line, I first felt that this phrase should have been changed when the document scope was reduced from "security protocols" to "routing protocols". However, in some cases, it seems that the protocol named in this field might be "TCP-AO". In other cases, it is reasonable to assume that the protocol where the key will be used is some mode of IPsec. In still further cases, the protocol where the key is used is the Routing Protocol itself (for example, OSPFv2 with Authentication Trailer based security). Therefore, I raise the issue of should this phrase be "single security protocol" or "single Routing Protocol" or something entirely different? Section 2, various bullets. I have a concern about the use of phrases such as "the protocol defines" in Section 2. I believe that the correct phrasing is "the protocol specification defines". If the community agrees, a number of sentences in various bullets will have to be corrected. Section 4, para under the bullets, line 2. "shared among all protocols on an implementation" Should this be "shared among all protocols on a device"? See also the comment on Section 2, bullet "Interfaces". Bill -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University EV 3.185 email:william.atwood@concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
- [karp] Comments on draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-tab… William Atwood
- Re: [karp] Comments on draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key… Sam Hartman