Bob, Rene, could you please get back to Francis (see below)? Gonzalo
On 05/03/2018 1:14 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > 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
