Re: [Raw] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Dear Erik Kline,

Thank you for your comments. Please find out answers inline below.

Best,
Nils Mäurer

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. April 2022 07:09
An: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Betreff: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: (with COMMENT)

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: No Objection


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10
CC @ekline

## Comments

### S1

* The use of RFCs 4291 and 7136 for "IPv6 based networking protocols" seems
  a bit odd to me.  These are addressing architecture and interface
  identifier documents; why not just RFC 8200 itself?

- Reply: We will reference RFC 8200 in updated versions of the draft.

### S4, S7.3.3

* I'm sure 6MAN wg might be interested in hearing if anything special is
  required of IPv6 w.r.t. operating over the sub-IP layer here.

- Reply: We will collect any special requirements for IPv6 over LDACS (or any Future Communications Infrastructure (FCI) data-link candidate such as AeroMACS, Iridium Certus or Inmarsat SwiftBroadband (SB))  and bring them to the attention of 6MAN wg. For now we can say, that all requirements imposed by the ATN/IPS infrastructure requirements document (specified by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Doc 9896 version 2/3, Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics  (RCTA) DO-390 and ARINC (Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated) P858 - all unfortunately behind a paywall as other ADs pointed out) apply. We believe there is great value in extracting relevant details from these aeronautical standards and bringing these details to the attention of IETF, simply as all future aeronautical traffic will be routed via IP and more specifically via the ATN/IPS.

### S7.3.2

* Just an FYI: consider having a look at RFC 3366 ("Advice to link designers
  on link Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)"), just in case there's anything
  helpful in there.  (To be clear: no action requested vis. this draft.)

### S9, S9.5.4

* I'm very glad to see that L2 integrity is a requirement.  Without it, many
  IPv6 on-link attacks become possible.

  However, even with L2 integrity, some consideration should be given to
  IPv6 operational security.  Please consider RFC 9099, along with several
  of the documents it references (RFC 4942, etc).

- Reply: The current security design of LDACS especially focuses on the prevention of alteration/injection of messages as well as mutual entity authentication, to prevent alterations of safety critical messages. We believe integrating considerations   for IPv6 operational security (hence RFC 9099) will prove very beneficial to the overall LDACS security and will take them into account.


## Nits

### S3.2

* s/While the aircraft is on ground/While the aircraft is on the ground/?

- Reply: We will change it to the correct form.