Hi Brian, Thanks OK now Roni From: Gen-art [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Weis (bew) Sent: יום ב 24 יולי 2017 19:18 To: Roni Even Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-05
Hi Roni, Thanks for your helpful review. On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:03 AM, Roni Even <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Reviewer: Roni Even Review result: Almost Ready 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-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2017-06-26 IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-17 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as standard track document Major issues: Minor issues: 1. In section 2 it says "A GM receiving the KEK_ACK_REQUESTED attribute can choose to ignore it, thus appearing as if it does not support the KEK_ACK_REQUESTED attribute.". Any reason for the GM to ignore the message? 2. In section 4 and section 6 it says the the GM SHOULD send an acknowledgement message. Is there a case when the GM should not send and if not why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST? After conferring, the authors believe that the real reason for a GM to ignore KEK_ACK_REQUESTED is because they do not support it. As such, we’ve adjusted the wording in several places to say this. And with that wording it makes sense for the SHOULD to become a MUST. 3. In section 6 "A non-receipt of an Acknowledgement is an indication that a GM is either unable or unwilling to respond". What about if the Acknowledgement message was lost? Any reliability procedure? We’ve clarified that reliability is most likely to come from transmitting the GROUPKEY-PUSH message several times. This comes from a recommendation in RFC 4046, and we’ve made this more explicit. The GCKS MAY be configured with additional policy actions such as transmitting the GROUPKEY-PUSH message several times in a short period of time (as suggested in [RFC4046]), which mitigates a packet loss of either the GROUPKEY-PUSH message or an Acknowledgement message. Nits/editorial comments: 1. In section 6 "Also a GM may be willing or able to respond with an GROUPKEY-PUSH ACK " . I cannot parse this sentence in the context of the section There was a “not” missing. The sentence now reads Also a GM may not be able to respond with an GROUPKEY-PUSH ACK. Let us know if these don’t sufficiently address your points. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Weis Security, CSG, Cisco Systems Telephone: +1 408 526 4796 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
