Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-04

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Tue, 20 December 2016 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21644129605; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:55:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BJOqhmN3m2R2; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:55:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33D031295F8; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 12:55:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11780; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1482267327; x=1483476927; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xGFWiwKfFJiB+z+QcIfIuuo9W8jXO0XfMtbHMnmAb+E=; b=KQ5g9dlf+OIbWdE45X3gJBca/SlZHyzHOidvRJhEdB+S3SbnIlhBsWTu TWLzWWaD4JyAf5DtVplPCmWkhaDRccx8Pn1C2KPUHglMsaXR5UPVKAhwA /GBpuhCwdlDAwY4NBAq45mJKSKMqOm/3P0j/+czP0zQxd04iRUVNGIl/x U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AkAQCMmVlY/49dJa1XBhkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJzRAEBAQEBH1qBBgeNSZZaj2mFJYIKhiICGoFPPxQBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQFiKIRpAgQSEVYQAgEIDjQCAgIwJQIEDgUiiEmbMgGNdoIoL4pbAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHYY2gX0IglSEMiWCbS2CMAWVA4VtAYx4hDuBdBiEa4l?= =?us-ascii?q?WjhqEDgEfN4EmOwGFSnKHZYENAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,380,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="362791515"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2016 20:55:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBKKtQvN017978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 20 Dec 2016 20:55:26 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:55:25 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com ([173.36.7.12]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:55:25 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-04
Thread-Index: AQHSWszFsmJTivNev0GoI5fThLpGTKERfV4A///kkAA=
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 20:55:25 +0000
Message-ID: <51D959C0-064D-451F-8224-737613A60F86@cisco.com>
References: <C219759D-6DE4-4B23-95C3-E39156FEAFC2@cisco.com> <20161220173336.DD3B64469FFE@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20161220173336.DD3B64469FFE@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51D959C0064D451F8224737613A60F86ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/iUoKhgUN7WMsc1EN8yu1zoxiYkE>
Cc: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, "sidr-chairs@ietf.org" <sidr-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup@ietf.org>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-04
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 20:55:29 -0000

On 12/20/16, 12:33 PM, "Rob Austein" <sra@hactrn.net>; wrote:



| At Tue, 20 Dec 2016 14:24:27 +0000, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

| | C1. Why isn?t an IETF namespace [RFC3688] used in the XML schema?  I

| | would strongly suggest that you use one and request it in the IANA

| | Considerations Section.  Unlike the publication protocol, this

| | document specifies version 1 ? which of course doesn?t mean there

| | isn?t a longer history behind it, so I?m open to keeping a non-IETF

| | namespace if that is the case.

|

| There's a longer history behind it :)



Ok, please include some of that in the document.



…

| | C2. Section 4.1. (Common Protocol Elements) says that ?The first XML

| | attribute in each message is a version field.?, and Appendix

| | A. (RelaxNG Schema) reflects that.  However, the examples

| | (throughout the document) don?t reflect the same ordering.

…

| Good catch(es).  If I recall correctly, XML attributes are an

| unordered set, so "first" doesn't really make sense for attributes

| (elements are a different story).  So my text cited in 4.1 is wrong.



Yes, you’re right.  When I looked into it I didn’t notice the difference between attributes and elements.  ☹



I’ll go ahead and start the IETF Last Call.



…

| | C3. In 4.2.2. (<parent_response/>), are the offer and referral

| | elements mutually exclusive?  What happens if the client receives a

| | parent_response with both?  If it is an error, is it considered a

| | syntax-error or something else?  Section 5. (Protocol Walk-Through)

| | offers a hint (?Bob doesn't have to accept Alice's offer, but may

| | choose to do so.?), but the specification is still not clear.

|

| A <parent_response/> containing both an offer and referrals would be

| unusual, but I don't think it's illegal, nor can I think of any reason

| why we should make it illegal.



If it is not illegal, what should the child do?



In Section 5 you hinted at the fact that Bob could choose.  Please make that clear – it would also be a good idea to include some of the considerations that may come into play when deciding.



Thanks!



Alvaro.