Re: [manet] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-27: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is generally a well written document and I enjoyed reading it.
>
> I have one remaining question which I would like to quickly discuss
> before recommending approval of this document:
>
> Section 14 (Security Considerations) now says:
>
>    When TLS is in use, each peer SHOULD check the validity of
>    credentials presented by the other peer during TLS session
>    establishment.  Mobile implementations MAY need to consider use of
>    pre-shared keys for credentials; implementations following the
>    "networked deployment" model described in Implementation Scenarios
>    SHOULD refer to [RFC7525] for additional details.
>
> RFC 7525 that you are referencing contains recommendations on version of
> TLS and ciphersuites to use.
> Section 6.1 of RFC 7525 talks about "Host Name Validation". I don't think
> this section applies to DLEP. So can you elaborate on how server identity
> is going to be verified using pre-shared keys and which parts of RFC 7525
> do you think apply to DLEP?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for addressing my earlier DISCUSS points.
>
> 13.  DLEP Data Items
>
>    Following is the list of core Data Items that MUST be recognized by
> a
>    DLEP compliant implementation.  As mentioned before, not all Data
>    Items need be used during a session, but an implementation MUST
>    correctly process these Data Items when correctly associated with a
>    Signal or Message.
>
> Is "skip over or ignore" a valid way to "correctly process"? I think so,
> but
> this might not be obvious from the text as written.
>

Yes, "silently ignoring" a data is a valid way to "correctly process". We
can make another run to tighten up this language.

Regards,
Stan

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>