Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc-18: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc-18 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Thanks for using SVG graphics :-) Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Sean Turner for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus (and the 2 WGLC) and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Section 6.2 In the case of NAT rebinding, how can a responder behind a NAT detect that its external address/port has changed as seen by the initiator: it still receives the other peers packet sent to its unchanged address/port ? What am I missing ? This could probably be addressed by some more text before `The action to be taken depends on whether or not the path through which the message was received is still the preferred one`. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### FATT process ? Out of curiosity, I still wonder what `FATT process` and `FATT review` mean in the shepherd write-up. ### Use of "path" Probably too late to change, but the choice of "path" rather than "anchor" or "socket" (or something else) is poor... the actual path (the set of network links and devices) keeps changing in an IP network. ### Section 1 A small graphical (packet exchange) would be useful even if the text is clear. ### Section 3 What is the expected server behavior when the client sends the rcc extension without offering the connection_id extension ? Is the whole handshake stopped or is the option ignored ? Please be specific. ### Section 4 Probably due to my lack of familiarity with the used syntax, but it seems that the enum part is not really part of the figure 1 legend of `Return Routability Check Message`. It seems more like an addition to TLS Content Type registry. Suggest to split this figure in two figures with 2 distinct legends. ### Section 5 s/has faster routing/has faster forwarding/ ? ### Section 5.1.1 Related to `the original packet still reaches the intended destination`, does this mean that an attacker can prevent rebinding to a new address/port by sending the packet from the 'old' address/port ? ### Section 5.2.1 What is "AP" in figures 5 and 6? ### Section 10.2 As this section ends with a recommendation, should it clearly be in the protocol specification part rather than in operational considerations ? _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
