IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Drip] AD review of draft-ietf-drip-rid

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com> Mon, 11 April 2022 12:59 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 BC1D33A0E08; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 05:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 aYJpxK9ilD8x; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 05:59:51 -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 60CA33A0E05; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2782B6256E; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:59:01 -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 nkcAr9yYw-px; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:58:56 -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 4AFD8625BB; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------XFoVMrWQwHzHOb2o0XPOIwO7"
Message-ID: <b5a5e0f6-c486-6b14-467c-61722f18bdf0@labs.htt-consult.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 08:59:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tm-rid@ietf.org" <tm-rid@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-drip-rid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-drip-rid@ietf.org>
References: <A8A9DD48-F67A-46FD-8A35-7C4EA1C94F88@cisco.com> <19882_1649677116_6254133C_19882_161_2_31c0c1eb89eb4e3f9a76147ee5d97df1@orange.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <19882_1649677116_6254133C_19882_161_2_31c0c1eb89eb4e3f9a76147ee5d97df1@orange.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/TTabkmjQwD4tVVMl6HFiMtjqhpI>
Subject: Re: [Drip] AD review of draft-ietf-drip-rid
X-BeenThere: tm-rid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 11 Apr 2022 12:59:56 -0000

Responses inline.

On 4/11/22 07:38, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Éric,
>
> Thank you for the careful AD review.
>
> Please see below for one specific point.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> *De :* Tm-rid <tm-rid-bounces@ietf.org> *De la part de* Eric Vyncke 
> (evyncke)
> *Envoyé :* lundi 11 avril 2022 12:58
> *À :* tm-rid@ietf.org
> *Cc :* draft-ietf-drip-rid@ietf.org
> *Objet :* [Drip] AD review of draft-ietf-drip-rid
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to the authors, shepherd, and the DRIP WG for producing this 
> 3rd I-D. And, I appreciate that the comments from iotdir, secdir, 
> cfrg, .. were taken into accounts :-)
>
> As usual, here is my AD review before going to the IETF Last Call and 
> continuing the publication process. Except noted by a "***", all the 
> comments can be ignored but I would appreciate a reply telling "we 
> have read your comment but prefer to ignore" (or a variation of this 
> text).
>
> I hope this helps improving the document and ease the publication process.
>
> Regards
>
> -éric
>
> ---- review below
>
> */[snip] /*…
>
> # Sec 11.2
>
> *** F3411 & drip-registries & CTA2063A & RFC 8032 should probably be 
> normative.
>
> */[Med] You are probably right for RFC8032. The good news is that it 
> is already listed in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/. /*
>

Normative.

> *//*
>
> *//*
>
> */F3411 is cited once to call out the various types. Reading that 
> document is not required to understand or implement HHITs/DETs. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */Idem for drip-registries. What is important from an interoperability 
> standpoint is to unambiguously identify a DET. This is done by means 
> of the prefix part. How the RAA/HDA parts are assigned does not 
> actually matter. /*
>
> *//*
>
> */I’m neutral on CTA2063A./*
>

All informative, IMHO.  Sec 4.2 is how to do DET within CTA2063A if this 
is your representational mode.  Everything about 2063A is included in 
this section, except how to register with ICAO to get a Manf code (with 
is not specified by CTA).  Thus the reader does not need the CTA document.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email