Bob, Rene, could you please look into the review below and get back to Francis? Thanks!
Cheers, Gonzalo On 26/02/2018 7:30 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > 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-hip-dex-06.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20180224 > IETF LC End Date: 20180226 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > - ToC page 3: you use the US spelling of Acknowledgments in the ToC > and the English one (acknowledgements) in the technical body. > Even when it is not very consistent I believe this follows RFC 7401 > choice so I am fine with this. > > - 2.1 page 6: please add/move to RFC 8174 which updates RFC 2119 fixing > the keyword case silly issue. > > - 2.2 page 6: perhaps "sort" should be added here? > > - 2.3 page 7 (twice): (c.f. Section 3) -> (see Section 3) or > simply (Section 3) > > - 4.1.3.2 page 16 (at end of line): e.g. -> e.g., > > - 5.3.3 page 25: I don't believe the critical property for > random value is to be "uniformly distributed" (for instance > I could have put "unpredictable"). I leave this to the security > directorate who should propose a better wording if they don't like > the current one... > > - 5.3.4 page 26: same comment. > > - 6.1 page 27: this section does not really explain what is the puzzle > (it only stands the equation to verify) but I remember the explaination > was before with a reference to 6.1 so I have no concern. > > - 6.2.1 sender 3 page 27: hidden dependency on the sort definition > for HOST_g/HOST_l so gl/lg keys. Yes it is in 6.3 but 6.3 is after. > > - 6.3 pages and 30: sort is used page 29 and defined after page 30, > this is why IMHO the question to move the definition to 2.2 notation > is a good one... > > - 6.3 page 30: / is not associative so ceil(L/RHASH_len/8) is bad. > The text shows it must be ceil(L/(RHASH_len/8)) (vs ceil((L/RHASH_len)/8)) > > - 6.5 1. page 31: Otherwise, it must drop the packet. -> MUST > > - 6.6 1. page 33: the system should process the R1 packet -> or SHOULD > or (I prefer) the system processes the R1 packet > > - 6.6 8. page 34: The R1 packet may have the A-bit set -> can > (not better from a language point of view but clearer and BTW > used for instance in 6.10...) > > - 6.6 13. page 34: it may either resend an I1 packet -> MAY? (cf 11.) > > - 6.7 5. page 36: Otherwise, the system should process the received I2 -> > or SHOULD or (better) processes (and drop -> drops) > > - 6.7 15. page 37: > If the A-bit is set, the Initiator's HIT is anonymous and should > not be stored permanently. -> IMHO SHOULD NOT or directly MUST NOT > > - 6.9 page 39: If a NOTIFY packet is received in state I2-SENT, this > packet may be an I2 reception acknowledgement of the optional > -> replace "may be" by "can be" or (better) "is" > > - 7 page 40: Please put "If a Responder is not under high load, #K > SHOULD be 0." in its own paragraph (i.e. add a break before "If"). > It makes clearer this sentence is a requirement when the text before > is the rationale. > > - 8 page 40: " either supports HIP DEX or HIPv2 must be able to detect" > -> MUST or "has to" > > - 8 pages 40 and 41: I think that the first and last paragraphs of > section 8 say the same thing. Should you keep both? > > - 9 page 41: I'd like to see a formal proof of the DEX protocol. > I believe you share this wish as you cite SIGMA. > > - 9 page 42: I'd like to go further and recommend (lower case) the > use of a RNG (vs PRNG) when available (hopefully no longer an exception). > > - 9 page 42: Hence, HIP DEX HITs should not be use -> SHOULD or > ought to? > > Thanks > > francis.dup...@fdupont.fr > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
