IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lwip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04

Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Thu, 08 April 2021 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15663A3C45; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 xqVCyQeFwMo0; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC97F3A3C44; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id t5-20020a1c77050000b029010e62cea9deso625997wmi.0; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :thread-index; bh=2sOg1mOLdG/51F30dXS2s59x6sIVN3XzqGfP7SRFWBs=; b=srYAPS9T84AhAdRHtWxiJ08unX71/ka/otg0ZORJve5ntyaKH0P4x/lO7Io6V9hTut 9jQIwyOJCe3s9sWI9ydekKvoh9Kn1m8quvw6g1WpdM/+NdR6mgWGzZYU9T7VAAgPjHzs KXXV6RHkeSfQP4m9WAKcWgDfryYVstw3ylAl+MCq4SaX5cCVtFZfUIkSGFFjS+oBoPfl 3+FiiaeUXG4I9O+RT0L7mZQcxZXBBENeaJ4PaRTIyy2xnhrNHQMUgb2uj+DkvteQo18J 9YI3D76mHp9upDwT3LE34ObKigPMcVJUZ2AHI4phPK9omXCbIumlGu6Qx3f6CVQ3B8/Y bD2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :thread-index; bh=2sOg1mOLdG/51F30dXS2s59x6sIVN3XzqGfP7SRFWBs=; b=g+/svkJQYkh5AomR+Gm9sWVNsEkgTeZTB4c+xqG1sM06lf50+DhIyegiN5GdeP2lTU 4sdfyHfNpyv25EXS79ivPxRfV9t2NNrjdedyaPgezklCX0+0GfsyNv0JdltBpvFtp4U2 nGj6VbvKkYlDUIsHIQB6/GSzOEWtABfAbzRupTaV43nzM1VaJ3vLbNQPZaHynSWOUD29 4H7pmu5kGLr/WTgNMKUtyKQTVcplc9uQuoYBEWHgIkb5m3vSxCgEkQiEo1GU0UiVOHcq IEmegWbd3aQ/X5eTY8//X51/mOKedbKFhVWlIbJxp/8N0wqdAQ0tHRYr/ISkYJud7b8a XPMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53129Eb02IwXWxwHihf6T3hqSWNisD/oR0AyZwGbHqnmfYwKzXz6 Jf3h/z2pDKs8jOUsb25rwrk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1onrKJ4HFECPX71inDdLMaTUC4SSPUpWLIMNfKpCQhQe3ClYjIyDta/as21ojwS7wePeN3w==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:c204:: with SMTP id s4mr6660484wmf.146.1617864003590; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniPC (bzq-109-65-42-55.red.bezeqint.net. [109.65.42.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m15sm42727960wrp.96.2021.04.07.23.40.01 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: 'Daniel Migault' <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp.all@ietf.org, lwip@ietf.org
References: <161735028661.10961.96470868100787043@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM6PR15MB2379F66D8CEDEB7301AA7427E3799@DM6PR15MB2379.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR15MB2379F66D8CEDEB7301AA7427E3799@DM6PR15MB2379.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 09:40:01 +0300
Message-ID: <0a2801d72c42$013d57a0$03b806e0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: he
Thread-Index: AQHz7ANyXQ0JbchBHs4NNzL4t/rdfwIIf+HwqmBm98A=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/bBwLxK-bt5FTKa7N8L0vPyJZKmc>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 06:40:11 -0000

Hi Daniel,
About the difference between the draft and RFC4303 when reading for the first time I thought that section 7 is not the same as 2.8 in RFC4303 about integrity only but it was my mistake. So forget this comment. Still you use authentication while RFC4303 use integrity but the recommendation is the same.
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Migault [mailto:daniel.migault@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 3:53 AM
> To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp.all@ietf.org; lwip@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04
> 
> Hi Roni,
> 
> Thanks for the review. We can of course add that RFC4303 is authoritative in
> the main body. I will update the document.
> 
> I am wondering what differences you have in mind. Of course the document are
> different but I am wondering if there is anything we should clarify.
> 
> Yours,
> Daniel
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 2, 2021 3:58 AM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp.all@ietf.org; lwip@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-04
> 
> 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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-lwig-minimal-esp-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2021-04-02
> IETF LC End Date: None
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> This is an early review of the draft. I find the 04 version easy to understand but
> have one comment
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> the last paragraph in the abstract , mostly the last sentence " RFC 4303 remains
> the authoritative description." should be in my opinion in the main body of the
> document and not only in the abstract. I also see some difference between the
> document and RFC4303
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email