Re: [OPSEC] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-05

[Peter Yee <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Justin,

	The changes are acceptable to me. None of my points were strongly enough held to be considered more than nits. Thank you for considering them.

		Kind regards,
		-Peter

On 6/18/23, 12:13 AM, "Justin Iurman" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    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”.
    > 
    > 
    >