Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-bryan-metalinkhttp-19.txt

Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com> Sun, 30 January 2011 06:38 UTC

Return-Path: <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147413A6925; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:38:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.626
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bbv579sUtPgb; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586133A68C8; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so2263216ewy.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:41:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yomlNnYl37zCf1eIAug2QEa4+OlC2Zi+F0xSAPtjAoE=; b=uOdGI9Q7+kAoADHpPw23aZjrzOMktWCVCFkq2Hpx569uEUKnPBHmyBVInlQj9nq+6W rn5HR56H4tiAUeYeeRBFMVKcEr5XWmByeS4Y0zmr0t7NC0heUiuvrY/RYHS91TYY5Cyw np3OQ1Y9VFx1pPbLRuWqb+Z+OxZsPVyqO35wY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=rANPhv37Qt9I8nP5FKporwxEyS9fIcY6ZuhG5X7WJzCkqycS5NKg4ful4qZOtg14vm 8TRXbXQS1ubsgahFR8SoIZozDR2++A6dR8Qiw5fzlEWHn/zzwSo4VYIPLi1vRhJfTnaZ k6LQtIFNBHk8D2Sox3K2GQk9G7hfclJ5sNYAo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.22.209 with SMTP id o17mr6959305ebb.41.1296369678666; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:41:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.213.98.69 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:41:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110128204146.GA24446@elstar.local>
References: <20110128204146.GA24446@elstar.local>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 01:41:18 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTim=iQzqM5pwdhQAmToVNjw3EHUWvTfAEPYJ5QWo@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-bryan-metalinkhttp.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-bryan-metalinkhttp-19.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 06:38:11 -0000

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; wrote:
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> Metalink provides meta information about resources such as locations
> where copies can be found or checksums. This specification defines how
> Metalink data can be transported as HTTP header lines. The document is
> generally easy to follow. The security considerations seem to be short
> but appropriate.
>
> That said, it seems the text in section 3 is not final in the sense
> that there might still be an open issue, although there is also text
> that says that it is up to the server to decide how many Link headers
> to send. The fix might be as simple as removing the following text:
>
>   [[Some organizations have many mirrors.  Only send a few mirrors, or
>   only use the Link header fields if Want-Digest is used?]]
>
> But then Appendix C lists this again as an open issue, together with a
> question whether partial hashes should be carried in HTTP as
> well. Perhaps the answer is "no" and this is just an old open issue
> item - I can't judge.

yes, old issue. I've removed the text.

> Editorial nits:
>
> - p1: s/althought/although/
>
> - p7: s/fieldss/fields/
>
> - p10: s/fieldss/fields/
>
> - p11: s/fieldss/fields/
>
> - p11: s/fieldss/fields/
>
> - p11: s/syncronisation/synchronisation
>
> - p12: s/cyptographic/cryptographic
>
> - p13: s/fieldss/fields/
>
> - p15: s/reponse/response/

eep! I've fixed all those typos.

thanks, Juergen.

-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads