Stewart, thanks for your reviews of this document. Scott, all, thanks for addressing Stewart’s comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Feb 5, 2020, at 5:54 PM, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) > <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hello, Stewart. The DTN WG chair has advised me to go ahead and post the > next version of the bpbis draft, so version 22 is now available for your > review. On the specific issues you bring up: > - The [BPSEC] reference has been updated as you propose. > - The allocation policy for the Block Processing Control Flags registry > (10.4) and the Bundle Protocol URI Scheme Types registry (10.6) has been > changed to Standards action, as the number of possible values is limited in > both cases. For the other registries I didn't think we needed to be so > exacting, as these values are integers of essentially unlimited length. > - I think "as needed" is actually better, as it indicates that this more > robust protection may be needed in some cases but not in others. > - All occurrences of "bpsec" have been changed to "BPsec". > - "namespace" has been changed to "registry in the Bundle Protocol > Namespace" in sections 10.1 through 10.5, though on re-reading the updated > text I notice that I missed this change in a few places; I'll make those > corrections on the next iteration of the draft. > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: dtn <dtn-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant via Datatracker > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 11:24 AM > To: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis....@ietf.org; d...@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21 > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-21 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2020-01-31 > IETF LC End Date: None > IESG Telechat date: 2020-02-06 > > Summary: > > This version is a major improvement on the version that I reviewed earlier. I > thank the authors for addressing my earlier review comments. There are a > number of minor issues that the authors ought to look at, particularly around > IANA allocation policy. Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > [BPSEC] Birrane, E., "Bundle Security Protocol Specification", Work > In Progress, October 2015. > > SB> I think that this should be a reference to draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec > > ======= > > In Section 10.3 the allocation policy has been changed to Standards Action > which seems wise given the size of the registry. However all the registries > called up in 10.1..10.5 are all small and the authors ought to consider > upgrading them of at least a portion of them to a higher bar than at present > (they are specification required). Specification required can be met by a > specification that is not even publicly accessible which can grab multiple > entries. This is a dangerous position to leave small the registries of a > Standards Track protocol. > > I have only checked the registries specifically addressed by this > specification and the authors ought to check the other registries in the > Bundle Protocol Namespace to see if any of them are also vulnerable. > > ======== > Nits/editorial comments: > > Note that more robust protection of BP data integrity, as needed, > > SB> I that should be ….,if needed, > > ===== > > SB> Bpsec appears as BPsec and bpsec also the noun bpsec is not defined > I assume you mean the BPsec protocol or mechanism or similar. > > ======= > The current Bundle Block Types namespace is augmented > > SB> I think that strictly you should say: > SB> The current Bundle Block Types registry in the Bundle Protocol > SB> Namespace is > augmented. > > This problem applies to the registries 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 > > _______________________________________________ > dtn mailing list > d...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
