[lmap] Review of draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 26 February 2017 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64B812940D; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:09:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148814339074.2901.10793232146724828053.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:09:50 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/U3cH_B1uoBFvHmnkA5Yj0rW3Hiw>
Cc: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
Subject: [lmap] Review of draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:09:51 -0000

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Almost Ready

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

Document: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2017-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-08
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary: Ready

Major Concerns:

Section 3.1 says that the pre-configuration information contains
the certificate of the Controller or the certificate of the CA
which issued the certificate for the Controller.  Section 3.1.1
includes ma-preconfig-credentials.  Are these the same?

Section 6 says that secure communication channels are needed.  This
that some components of this system (at least the Controller) must
secret keys or private keys.  I think that Section 6 should talk
which components of this system have keys and the consequences if the
keys are not well protected.

Minor Concerns:

The Introduction in RFC 7594 says: "There is a desire to be able
to coordinate the execution of broadband measurements and the
collection of measurement results across a large scale set of
Measurement Agents (MAs)."  The Fact that LMAP is about broadband
measurements should be stated in the first paragraph of the
Introduction of this document.


In Section 3, the reason for the 6 categories should probably be
placed before the list instead of several paragraphs later.

In 3.1: s/If the MA ID is not provided at this stage then/
         /If the MA ID is not provided at this stage, then/