Re: [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-drip-rid-24
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> Mon, 16 May 2022 12:32 UTC
Return-Path: <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF142C1850DB; Mon, 16 May 2022 05:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1rt5_KUM0fV; Mon, 16 May 2022 05:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C11DC1850E0; Mon, 16 May 2022 05:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151E262653; Mon, 16 May 2022 08:31:55 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id imnk8rKjWy7W; Mon, 16 May 2022 08:31:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.160.11] (unknown [192.168.160.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C428A6247F; Mon, 16 May 2022 08:31:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <2daf66de-77d6-fc0d-eee2-c350acdd3315@labs.htt-consult.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 08:32:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-drip-rid.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tm-rid@ietf.org
References: <165219993739.31003.15943195085450775813@ietfa.amsl.com> <7934cf85-98d7-8cd0-942f-b8244222ff7c@labs.htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <7934cf85-98d7-8cd0-942f-b8244222ff7c@labs.htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/5PelT_kylhEsVOaUYrZomBqkc08>
Subject: Re: [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-drip-rid-24
X-BeenThere: tm-rid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Drone Remote Identification Protocol <tm-rid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tm-rid/>
List-Post: <mailto:tm-rid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 12:32:47 -0000
Elwyn, I believe your comments are the only opens left. Does this response and the current drip-rid-26 address your points? Note that the question sec 8.1 was addressed by IANA and is reflected in -26. Thank you. Bob On 5/10/22 21:13, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > > On 5/10/22 12:25, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker wrote: >> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies >> 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-drip-rid-24 >> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies >> Review Date: 2022-05-10 >> IETF LC End Date: 2022-05-11 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: >> Ready with nits. I can't speak for the robustness of the security >> choices but >> the document is well written apart from a couple of pieces of deep >> jargon that >> may need explanation for more naive readers (notably multilateration - >> definitely a new one on me!) > > Multilateration occurs once in the draft, sec 9.1. It is a main part > of draft-moskowitz-crowd-sourced-rid where I have the definition: > > Multilateration: Multilateration (more completely, pseudo range > multilateration) is a navigation and surveillance technique based > on measurement of the times of arrival (TOAs) of energy waves > (radio, acoustic, seismic, etc.) having a known propagation speed. > > > Do you think it should be added here in the definitions section? I > really don't want to pull it from 9.1, and I don't see adding this > whole definition into 9.1. > > Multilateration is an important tool in aviation traffic management. > Oh and this is fundamental to GPS. > > I do expect, at some point soon, that crowd-sourced-rid will become a > wg draft... > > >> >> Major issues: >> None >> >> Minor issues: >> None >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> Abstract/s1: The term 'self-asserting IPv6 address' is defined in >> Section 3 >> of the DRIP architecture. AFAICS 'self-asserting' is novel >> terminology, at >> least in this context, and I think it would be good to point to the >> architecture in the Abstract and to make it a little clearer that >> the term >> self-asserting (IPv6 address) is defined in the architecture - I >> missed that on >> first reading - as well as the idea of HHITs. > > para 2 of the Intro references Architecture, but what do you think of: > > This document describes the use of Hierarchical Host Identity Tags > (HHITs) as self-asserting IPv6 addresses, as described in the DRIP > Architecture, and thereby a trustable identifier for use as the > Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification and tracking (UAS RID). > > > > >> >> s1, para 3: s/are updated, these/are updated, but these/ > > Fixed for -25 > >> >> s3.2: Query: Is there are good reason for leaving the HIT/HHIT Suite >> ID value >> 4 unused? > > Because draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto has it as '5', and that draft > (which will be needed for secure-nrid-c2) proposed 5 (and 6) because a > dead draft used 4... > > I will see if I can move them all up. I do have to check with > implementors to see if there are any issues that I am forgetting. > >> >> s3.2, s3.4.2, s8.2 and s8.4: After the definition of the >> EdDSA/cSHAKE128 value >> '(RECOMMENDED)' is appended. What or who is this recommendation >> aimed at? >> The users of the specification or IANA in relation to TBD3? The >> registry >> doesn't seem to have scope for recording this recommendation. If it >> is aimed >> at users, I think there should be words to this effect in s3.2 and it is >> probably not relevant in s3.4.2. > > To implementors. This is a copy from 7401, and maybe it is no longer > the style? > > From 7401: > > HIT Suite Four-bit ID Eight-bit encoding > > RESERVED 0 0x00 > RSA,DSA/SHA-256 1 0x10 (REQUIRED) > ECDSA/SHA-384 2 0x20 (RECOMMENDED) > ECDSA_LOW/SHA-1 3 0x30 (RECOMMENDED) > > > Can someone provide guidance on current style for me? > >> >> s3.4.1.1 and s8.4: Similar question regarding '(RECOMMENDED)'. >> >> s3.4, para 2: s/As such the following updates HIP parameters./The >> subsections >> of this section document the required updates of HIP parameters./ > > Fixed. Thanks, I like this improved wording. > >> >> s3.5.2.1, s3.5.3 and s3.5.4: I suggest adding a reference to the >> HITv2 archive >> where the prefix 2001:20::'28 is allocated (3 places). > > is it enough to put in 3.5.2.1 a reference to sec 6, RFC7343? > > For HIPv2, the Prefix is 2001:20::/28 (Section 6 of [RFC7343]). > 'Info' is zero-length (i.e., not included), and OGA ID is 4-bit. > > >> >> s4, para 2: 'The 2022 forthcoming ...' is not future proof. Suggest >> adding an >> RFC editor note to remove '2022 forthcoming' during editing. > > the doc is in ASTM editor's hands now. But we all know about final > editing processes! > > Does this resolve your concern: > > Note to RFC Editor: This, and all references to F3411 need to be > updated to this new version which is in final ASTM editing. A new > link and replacement text will be provided when it is published. > > > >> >> s5, para 1: s/does not intent/does not intend/ > > fixed > >> s5: The examples should be using the 'example' top level domain. > > It was the authors' intent to show an example of an aviation related > top level domain. Is such an intention incompatible with FQDN > examples? Note that icao.int IS the current ICAO domain. It is not > established, at this time, that DETs will be in this TLD. It IS being > discussed in ICAO, and the authors are part of that discussion. > > >> s5, para 7: The phrase 'If we assume a prefix of 2001:30::/28,' is >> confusing. >> This prefix is the one the document is asking IANA to allocate for >> the HHITs so >> I suggest 'Using the allocated prefix for HHITs TBD6 [suggested value >> 2001:30::/28] (See Section 3.1)'. > > Done > >> s8.1, last item: 'False?': A decision needs to be taken on what >> value should >> be here. > > I check in 7343, sec 6 and there 'False' is used. I don't know this > part of IANA considerations and need guidance. > >> s9.1, para 4: Is 'multilateration' sufficiently well understood to >> be used >> without explanation? > > In aviation. See beginning of the reply. I am defining it in > draft--drip-crowd-sourced-rid > >> App A, para 1: s/EU/The EU/ (2 places). > > Done > > > And thank you for your review. > > Bob >
- [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-drip… Elwyn Davies via Datatracker
- Re: [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Drip] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Drip] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of d… Elwyn Davies