[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
>