Thank you for addressing these issues.

- Stewart

> On 5 Feb 2020, at 22:54, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) 
> <scott.c.burle...@jpl.nasa.gov> 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

Reply via email to