Re: [P2PSIP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09: (with COMMENT)

"Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de> Thu, 03 November 2016 16:01 UTC

To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <abdad8a96fbe484d8a8cdaa30f2f4802@HUB02.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de>
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de>
Message-ID: <6c639771-f141-489e-af64-18460c951708@haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 17:01:22 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <abdad8a96fbe484d8a8cdaa30f2f4802@HUB02.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/yC-Q9xu425JV8icCm83_Z4NFScE>
Cc: "draft-ietf-p2psip-share@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-p2psip-share@ietf.org>, "marc@petit-huguenin.org" <marc@petit-huguenin.org>, "p2psip@ietf.org" <p2psip@ietf.org>, "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" <p2psip-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi,

please see inline.

On 03.11.2016 13:43, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-p2psip-share-09: No Objection
>
> 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-p2psip-share/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> - General: this feels more like an experimental spec. If the
> authors didn't object I think that'd be more appropriate.
>

Well authors hope(d) for this to serve as an enabling standard ...

> - General: can these ACLs be resources to which access is
> controlled via another of these ACLs? If so, then it seems like
> there may be some nasty corner-cases where things get lost (so
> nobody can change 'em in future) and I don't see how one might
> recover from that. (Apologies if I'm just mixed up here, I read
> this fairly quickly and didn't reload RELOAD into my little head
> first;-)
>

No. The ACL is itself a shared resource owned by the initial creator 
that will have full rights as long as the resource (and the owner) 
exist. There is no way of disabling the owner.

> - 3.1: 24 bits of collision resistance isn't many. I'm not clear
> why that's ok
>

This actually is meant for small numbers and the storing peer protects 
against collisions (see SecDir review).

> - 3.1, last para: SHA-1 isn't a good example really, SHA-256
> would be better today.
>

This is from Reload - we are not specifying overlay hash functions in 
this document.

> - 5.3: Is the mapping to USER and DOMAIN from certificates
> well-defined? It may be in RELOAD, I forget, sorry;-) It doesn't
> seem to be well-defined here anyway.
>

Yes, certificate and usernames are held in correspondence by reload.

Cheers,
  Thomas
-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °

[P2PSIP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-… Stephen Farrell
Re: [P2PSIP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on dr… Thomas C. Schmidt