[OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman-probstate-reqs
Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com> Mon, 06 January 2014 07:48 UTC
Return-Path: <denghui02@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B760A1AC4C1 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:48:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Qb1E-5obgnro for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-x22a.google.com (mail-qe0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9431AC4AB for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f42.google.com with SMTP id b4so18074063qen.15 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 23:48:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=xah1t3ieP1KZDLIMOGBgSCFwnNfowsZFtL/LqQ7IZ/s=; b=iaisnjCkRO/Q4s04brf1BoN/LTSgi7XIYKyEiynoxJl17JxaGsCsYuT5KzGbidNwlq QOXvqIWbXTgHN8p98erY/fLqdwhbC1XE+c0EpaUSv44md17ixp7NMwA1X6K4USzEVNww 6382YDbkquUUfggFFYk1S5hpSU8Opd8D70ux+C++YWSENrUdHWtycYMjzrGFGslbGQrd ccE23V2nJYdYW7dAkEEB0aqGquf/HEsuJRdd7q4sUX31Z/0hKBj5tOst3bx5rDl5EziI g0PLWdEnUciIrtSutPvpxAlFoHXCVXPyPg8HU9DPMu/sMeyCZmQG2vkeZ9fkFwkYliZK 8bEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.46.196 with SMTP id k4mr39906312qaf.43.1388994514166; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 23:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.194.197 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 23:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:48:34 +0800
Message-ID: <CANF0JMCZzziqvjvTJ0WaJ8Wo3kSNHDhhurmcYmX4FpcqWfq2+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1f1509ca7ae04ef487cf1"
Subject: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman-probstate-reqs
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 07:48:47 -0000
Hi Authors, This document is very useful for service providers and operators that are managing their constrained devices. Two cents for authors to consider, 1. in section 3., a section of ‘IPv4/v6 address management’ could be helpful, including the discussion of different types of ip addresses on devices, link-local, global, private, etc.. 2. in Appendix A, any relevant discussion in ‘oneM2M’? Regards, -Hui 2014/1/4 Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com> > Hi Dan, > > thank you for your review and comments. See below. > > Cheers, > Mehmet > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext > Romascanu, Dan > > (Dan) > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:23 PM > > To: Warren Kumari; opsawg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-* > > > > Hi, > > > > I do not know if I really should be included in the reviewers count, as > I am a participant > > in the coman work since it started, and my name shows up on the list of > authors, > > although in all sincerity most of the credits go to Mehmet, who hold the > pen for most > > of the time, including this latest wound which split the original > document into two > > separate documents - one for use cases, the other for problem statement > and > > requirements. Anyway, FWIW I obviously believe this work is useful and I > support > > doing it in the OPSAWG. I have a few comments recorded below: > > > > draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases > > > > 1. I do not believe that we can get away with a zero-content security > considerations > > section. The described use cases mention the need to secure information > collected by > > constrained devices, some other (like security cameras) carry > information related to > > personal or public security that needs to be protected by robust > mechanisms. These > > kind of threats need to be mentioned IMO. > > You are right a dummy security considerations section is not sufficient. > Coman was not planning to address security exhaustively. Solace, now ACE, > has > been started where security for constrained devices will be discussed. > We discussed the security requirements in section 3.6 of the problem > statement draft. > > I agree, a discussion of the security threads should be provided in a > security considerations section. > > > draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs > > > > 1. The draft uses the 'adjective' small device in association with > constrained device in a > > few place. I suggest to remove this. There is no automatic association > of a device > > being small implying that it is also constrained. Nor are all > constrained devices small in > > size. > > Agree. We should be more precise with the terminology. > > > 2. We have made an effort in the last few versions and especially in > this one to > > distinguish between the constrained devices and constrained networks, > but the clean-up > > on this issue is not complete. For example section 1.6 still has text > about constrained > > networks - this section and other in which constrained networks are > mentioned should > > be carefully examined to make sure that the focus of the document stays > with > > constrained devices, and that if constrained networks are mentioned at > all this is in the > > context of their relationship with the constrained devices. > > Why strictly devices? We also have requirements discussing the > organization of constrained networks from management pov. in section 3.1. > > > 3. I do not believe that we can get away with a zero-content security > considerations > > section here either. The document even says: > > > > If specific requirements for > > security will be identified, they will be described in future > > versions of this document. > > > > This is not accurate - section 3.6 already speaks about requirments for > security and > > access control, and section 1.6 mentions limitations that would prevent > the > > implementation of strong scryptographic algorythms. The text needs to be > reviewed > > and revised from this perspective. > > I think the "future" is now and the current text in the security > considerations section needs to be replaced. I would suggest to provide a > security considerations section by listing and discussing threads in the > problem statement draft and refer to it from the use cases draft. > Comments? > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Warren > Kumari > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:49 PM > > > To: opsawg@ietf.org > > > Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-* > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Hopefully you all had a good Thanksgiving -- if you are in the US, > > > hopefully you had good turkey, stuffing / whatever. > > > If you are not US based, hopefully you enjoyed the decrease in email > > > volume while everyone recovered form eating too much. :-) > > > > > > One of the action items from Vancouver was for us to call for reviewers > > > for: > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/ > > > and > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases/ > > > > > > So, can we get some volunteers please? According to our new guidelines > > > we require sufficient reviewers before adopting new work. > > > > > > The documents are (IMO) interesting and easy to read. Constrained > > > devices have some interesting requirements and limitations. > > > If you would like a quick reminder / refresher from the meeting, slides > > > are here: > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-11.pdf > > > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> indicated > > > that one of his Ph.D. students had read the draft a couple of weeks > ago. > > > So they just have to review the changes to the latest version. > > > > > > > > > W > > > -- > > > "I think it would be a good idea." > > > - Mahatma Ghandi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OPSAWG mailing list > > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
- [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman-pro… Hui Deng
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… James Nguyen
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… James Nguyen
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… James Nguyen
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… Andy Bierman
- Re: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-opsawg-ersue-coman… James Nguyen