[Tzdist] eliot review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 30 January 2015 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9923B1A9072 for <tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:32:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 L0G1IBdc2wTc for <tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:32:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DA3C1A9071 for <tzdist@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 06:32:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3241; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1422628332; x=1423837932; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject; bh=ZjntoglBq9GBLr6eg7gjaT2Rltod20m3VtzUiBtN76E=; b=DJDSvGQGc5OkRZl3dWDM7LI8enBvAl9TYMdRs5fOtXQgWHc6mkBwe4Bk p2MlAg1fKQfjigo0acBHMxBCQfv5dy/UNvZQjAbhez1ZXPR32p/FclN9T Dw383a8xggvK8lE/WmuA7JCXs0GqM5/DDSdrgyYNLI5VcCMhK4RnOVICt Y=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DyBACblctU/xbLJq1ahDGDAclAAQEBAQF9hA4EJEsKBjcWCwILAwIBAgFLDQYCAQGIIAixXI9IlX4BAQgCAR+SZ4FBBZBPgSmGJoY4jBkig289MYJCAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,491,1418083200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="328172156"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2015 14:32:10 +0000
Received: from [10.61.198.118] ([10.61.198.118]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0UEWA22022294 for <tzdist@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:32:10 GMT
Message-ID: <54CB95E9.1020702@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:32:09 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Time Zone Data Distribution Service <tzdist@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sTKBAlFtSdTrGIufu82mIXuvxfWWT2hBC"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tzdist/QaKs2_jc8EGd8ckxL2zkry5Wc1w>
Subject: [Tzdist] eliot review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service
X-BeenThere: tzdist@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <tzdist.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/>
List-Post: <mailto:tzdist@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:32:13 -0000

Major issues:

Security & privacy considerations must be addressed.  That doesn't mean
we have to accept every aspect of Daniel's review, but we certainly do
need to address them.

Section 8:
>
>    Clients that support transport layer security as defined by [RFC2818]
>    SHOULD try the "_timezones" service first before trying the
>    "_timezone" service.  Clients MUST follow the certificate
>    verification process specified in [RFC6125].

This poses a downgrade attack.  What I thought we had agreed was that we
wanted was that servers MUST implement timezones, and MAY implement
both; clients SHOULD use timezones, but MAY instead query timezone.  But
they should choose one and use it, processing an error if no service is
available.

Minor Issues:

In Section 2, as far as this protocol is concerned, is there any
architectural difference between Root Providers and Secondary
Providers?  If not, we should should say so.  I'm tempted to suggest
combining them, as well.

Section 3.9:
>    When truncating the start of a "VTIMEZONE" component, the server MUST
>    include either a "STANDARD" or "DAYLIGHT" sub-component with a
>    "DTSTART" property value that matches the start point of the
>    truncation range, and appropriate "TZOFFSETFROM" and "TZOFFSETTO"
>    properties to indicate the correct offset in effect right before and
>    after the truncation range start point.

Very minor: do you mean an OR or an exclusive OR above.  If you mean the
former, I would suggest replacing the word "either" with "at least one
of".  If you mean an exclusive or, then I would suggest replacing
"either" with "exactly one".

Section 4.2.1.2 & 4.2.1.3

Is there a need for both of these mechanisms?


Nits:

In the next version the following text should either have its tense
changed or be removed:

>    Discussion of this document should take place on the tzdist working
>    group mailing list <tzdist@ietf.org>rg>.

Section 2:
>    (a) Contributors:  Individuals, governments or organizations which
>       provide information about time zones to the publishing process.
>       There can be many contributors.

Note that this spec does not address contributors as that is an internal
matter for the publisher.

Eliot