Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-05
Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be> Sat, 17 June 2023 15:13 UTC
Return-Path: <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CD1C14F74A; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=uliege.be
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYHulwghQAQQ; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 373FBC1522CD; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.62] (125.179-65-87.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be [87.65.179.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EEE75200C98C; Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:12:58 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be EEE75200C98C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uliege.be; s=ulg20190529; t=1687014779; bh=EfFKal61oRezAHC7JdHeh4GO1Qu6mjSN8FbSWH8bAS4=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=rDfbLOMki/vFFj0bhfx/MxBmkZFM4zH70GcLhFgBxGUx5KOFSaxmJwaEZgrM4uU4j w8MJIDKUS6nynzr0aA+fHb/hVwoUnCRSDnSSh+8YzjJef8sAA1Wnl0840r4OKl/45M ODlAR2ZqKjzrrzehNxUK0Z1bqx8zN82Fw6MpuWD/xkNBO/I7Ij6YgIxRZQgbU08PsV F0cXfR41Or4hn5sWJCd+Jei6eJPIh11UcocLFmYDyPPOQUwfxEzhEg9rMqVW6pHkTT pkwMulysU5ejhhnpfQsCSNMSlIuoXHnpiYyN0nSdgycYXjnrHltVECjdE1VVKToVKs z56si/yq11JXw==
Message-ID: <a899795b-8d5b-b77c-acc8-edc2eb26fe7c@uliege.be>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:12:58 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, opsec@ietf.org
References: <168615663634.33016.16335583889761548966@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
In-Reply-To: <168615663634.33016.16335583889761548966@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/F7q9w9aCpvRmdIPnWDEDvw2GjsU>
Subject: Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-05
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:13:53 -0000
Hi Peter, We just published a new version (-06) that should address your review. Thanks, Justin On 6/7/23 18:50, Peter Yee via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > > Document: draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-05 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 2023-06-07 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-06-08 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: This informative specification indicates how good-intentioned > researchers may alert receivers (or intermediaries) of their probe traffic as > to what the probes are and how to contact the researchers. The document is > reasonably well written, but it has some nits that should be corrected prior to > publication. [Ready with nits] > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Page 1, Abstract, last sentence: rearrange “what is its purpose” to “what its > purpose is” for parallel construction and ease of reading. > > Page 3, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change “parties” to “parties’” (if this > should be plural) or “party’s” (if this should be singular). > > Page 3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “where” to “that”. > > Page 3, 2nd bullet item: change “what is its purpose” to “what its purpose is” > for the same reasons as in the abstract. > > Page 4, 1st paragraph after the two bullet items: change “one line” to > “one-line”. > > Page 3, section 3, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Probe inclusion hasn’t even > been discussed at this point, so “As an alternative” is not appropriate here. > Either swap the in-band and out-of-band sections or reword. I prefer swapping, > but it’s possible this already happened once and hence the odd phrasing > considering the current ordering. > > Page 5, 1st, 2nd, and 5th bullet items: change the first “a” to “an” if the > [RFCxxxx] reference is considered silent or all of them to “an” if the > reference is expected to be read as part of the sentence. > > Page 6, 1st paragraph, last sentence at “multiple possibilities”: Are multiple > in-band options allowed or suggested? Is there “concatenation” of multiple > probe methods applied by different probe generators or for different research > purposes? If so or even if not, a discussion here might be worthwhile. > > Page 6, section 5, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I’m not sure what is meant by > “will”. Do you mean “intent”? > > Page 6, section 5, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: regarding “dynamic source > addresses”, why would this be a problem? The web server would presumably be on > the same IP address as probe generation, so, as the IP address changes, the web > server would appear on the new address. There might be a short period where > this isn’t the case, but it seems the overall inability to reach a web server > for the out-of-band option is small unless the address changes frequently. > > Page 7, section 6, 1st paragraph: move “unsolicited” before “transit”. > > Page 7, section 6, 2nd paragraph: change “identity” to “identify”. > > Page 7, section 6, 2nd paragraph: It’s not clear to me that unsolicited transit > parties necessarily have much recourse or that the probe sender can effect much > change in their use other than not sending probes at all. > > Page 7, section 6, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: remove the space between > “valid” and “?”. > > Page 7, section 7, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: move “would” before “this”. > > >
- [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ops… Peter Yee via Datatracker
- Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Justin Iurman
- Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Justin Iurman
- Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Peter Yee