Telechat Review of draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-
review-ietf-nea-pt-tls-genart-telechat-even-2012-10-02-00

Hi,

I am OK with your responses. The only thing I am not sure is about using PEN 0
defined in the registry.



Decimal

| Organization

| | Contact

| | | Email

| | | |

0

  Reserved

    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

      iana&iana.org



I was wondering how this enterprise number should be specified since it appears
as "Reserved" in the registry. I have no specific suggestion

Roni





From:

 Paul Sangster [mailto:Paul_Sangster at symantec.com]

Sent:

 Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:56 PM

To:

 Roni Even; draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls.all at tools.ietf.org

Cc:

 'IETF'; gen-art at ietf.org; nea at ietf.org

Subject:

 RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-05



Thanks for the detailed review, comments are in-lined…



From:

 Roni Even [

mailto:ron.even.tlv at gmail.com

]

Sent:

 Monday, June 04, 2012 2:20 PM

To:

draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls.all at tools.ietf.org

Cc:

 'IETF';

gen-art at ietf.org

Subject:

 GenART LC review of draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-05



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.



Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.



Document: draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–6–4

IETF LC End Date: 2012–6–13

IESG Telechat date:



Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.



Major issues:



Minor issues:

1.



In section 3.2 “Therefore, this specification requests the IANA reserve a TCP
port number for use with the PT-TLS protocol upon publication of this
specification as an Internet standard RFC.” I think it will  be better to have
here the assigned port number and instruct the RFC editor to put the correct
value.



[PS:] Ok, we can reword this in hopes of getting a particular value (race
condition with other upcoming RFCs).



2.



In section 3.4.2.2 last paragraph you summarize the text from section 3.8 while
in the paragraph above you provide the reference. Why do you need the last
paragraph if 3.8 is referenced.



[PS:] The goal of this section is to introduce and summarize the different
phases of PT-TLS.  We felt a brief discussion of the general message flow was
helpful to the reader to understand what occurs during this phase (similar to
what we did in the other sub-sections).  Your correct that this information is
covered later in more detail.



3.



In various places you refer to SMI 0 as IETF SMI number while according to the
table it is IANA SMI number.



[PS:] I presume this is about the PEN 0 being for the IETF.  Correct, it’s the
IETF’s name space that administered by the IANA.  What text would you like to
see to make this more clear?  Can we do it in one place, for example stating
that the IETF name space is administered by the IANA?



4.



I assume that all implementations MUST support message type vendor ID 0. Is
this mentioned?



[PS:] The purpose of this section was just to summarize and enumerate the
message types for vendor id 0.   I don’t think it’s a general rule that any
message type defined in the IETF (IANA

J

) name space must (or should be) supported by all implementations.  It will
vary depending on the purpose of the message so that normative language is
included in the descriptions of the message.



5.



In section 3.5 and 6.1 you propose a policy of “Expert Review with
Specification Required “. I think that according to RFC5226 expert review is
implied if you select a specification required policy.



[PS:] I agree, it says “Specification Required also implies use of a Designated
Expert”.  The policy is just “Specification Required” so we could remove the
“Expert Review with” and make it clear it’s the Specification Required IANA
policy.



6.



In section 3.6 on 9+ “Recipients of messages   of type 9 or higher that do not
support the PT-TLS Message Type Vendor ID and PT-TLS Message Type of a received
PT-TLS message MUST respond with a Type Not Supported PT-TLS error code in a
PT-TLS Error message.” I think this is true only for Message Type Vendor ID 0.



[PS:] Thanks will reword this section to make it more clear.



7.



In 3.7.1 for Max vers and prefs ver you say that they MUST be set to 1. I think
it will be more correct here to say SHOULD since you explain afterwards that
they may have other values.



[PS:] I think this is a MUST.  The next sentence just points out that this
normative text might change in a future revision (which is not currently
planned).



8.



In section 3.7.2 “the recipient SHOULD send”. Why not make it a MUST here.



[PS:] I ok with making this change, let’s see what others think …



9.



In section 3.7.2 “The version selected MUST be within the Min Vers to Max Vers
inclusive range sent in the Version Request   Message” I was expecting to see
pref ver here.



[PS:] Perf is just an informational (hint) preference.



10.



In section 3.8.3 “ The SASL client authentication starts when the NEA Server 
enters the PT-TLS Negotiation phase and its policy indicates  that an
authentication of the NEA Client is necessary but was not performed during the
TLS handshake protocol “ my read of  section 3.8 second paragraph is that it
can be done even if was done in the TLS handshake so the last part of the
sentence is not correct, if there is a policy you do it anyhow. This comment is
also for the third paragraph.



[PS:] Thanks, this was supposed to be an example.  Will fix these.



11.



In section 3.9 I noticed that you propose to send the entire original message.
Isn’t it enough to send only the message identifier. This is based on the last
sentence of this section.



[PS:] Not “the entire original message” as its at most the first 1024 bytes of
the offending message.  This allows the recipient to either caches recently
sent messages and/or message identifiers when determining what caused the
error.  We thought this flexibility was useful and had very little cost.



12.



Most of the text in section 6.1 repeats RFC5226 but in your words. Are you
trying to change some of RFC5226 text if not why write it in different words?



[PS:] We were hoping to emphasize the aspects of 5226 that are most important
to this specification.  We weren’t trying to change how the IANA policy was
interpreted.  Did you think we did so?  Is there a portion of this text that is
most troubling or was this just a question?









Nits/editorial comments: