On 5/10/22 12:25, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review result: Ready with Nits
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-drip-rid-24
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2022-05-10
IETF LC End Date: 2022-05-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
Ready with nits. I can't speak for the robustness of the security choices but
the document is well written apart from a couple of pieces of deep jargon that
may need explanation for more naive readers (notably multilateration -
definitely a new one on me!)
Multilateration occurs once in the draft, sec 9.1. It is a main part of
draft-moskowitz-crowd-sourced-rid where I have the definition:
Multilateration: Multilateration (more completely, pseudo range
multilateration) is a navigation and surveillance technique based
on measurement of the times of arrival (TOAs) of energy waves
(radio, acoustic, seismic, etc.) having a known propagation speed.
Do you think it should be added here in the definitions section? I
really don't want to pull it from 9.1, and I don't see adding this whole
definition into 9.1.
Multilateration is an important tool in aviation traffic management. Oh
and this is fundamental to GPS.
I do expect, at some point soon, that crowd-sourced-rid will become a wg
draft...
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract/s1: The term 'self-asserting IPv6 address' is defined in Section 3
of the DRIP architecture. AFAICS 'self-asserting' is novel terminology, at
least in this context, and I think it would be good to point to the
architecture in the Abstract and to make it a little clearer that the term
self-asserting (IPv6 address) is defined in the architecture - I missed that on
first reading - as well as the idea of HHITs.
para 2 of the Intro references Architecture, but what do you think of:
This document describes the use of Hierarchical Host Identity Tags
(HHITs) as self-asserting IPv6 addresses, as described in the DRIP
Architecture, and thereby a trustable identifier for use as the
Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification and tracking (UAS RID).
s1, para 3: s/are updated, these/are updated, but these/
Fixed for -25
s3.2: Query: Is there are good reason for leaving the HIT/HHIT Suite ID value
4 unused?
Because draft-moskowitz-hip-new-crypto has it as '5', and that draft
(which will be needed for secure-nrid-c2) proposed 5 (and 6) because a
dead draft used 4...
I will see if I can move them all up. I do have to check with
implementors to see if there are any issues that I am forgetting.
s3.2, s3.4.2, s8.2 and s8.4: After the definition of the EdDSA/cSHAKE128 value
'(RECOMMENDED)' is appended. What or who is this recommendation aimed at?
The users of the specification or IANA in relation to TBD3? The registry
doesn't seem to have scope for recording this recommendation. If it is aimed
at users, I think there should be words to this effect in s3.2 and it is
probably not relevant in s3.4.2.
To implementors. This is a copy from 7401, and maybe it is no longer
the style?
From 7401:
HIT Suite Four-bit ID Eight-bit encoding
RESERVED 0 0x00
RSA,DSA/SHA-256 1 0x10 (REQUIRED)
ECDSA/SHA-384 2 0x20 (RECOMMENDED)
ECDSA_LOW/SHA-1 3 0x30 (RECOMMENDED)
Can someone provide guidance on current style for me?
s3.4.1.1 and s8.4: Similar question regarding '(RECOMMENDED)'.
s3.4, para 2: s/As such the following updates HIP parameters./The subsections
of this section document the required updates of HIP parameters./
Fixed. Thanks, I like this improved wording.
s3.5.2.1, s3.5.3 and s3.5.4: I suggest adding a reference to the HITv2 archive
where the prefix 2001:20::'28 is allocated (3 places).
is it enough to put in 3.5.2.1 a reference to sec 6, RFC7343?
For HIPv2, the Prefix is 2001:20::/28 (Section 6 of [RFC7343]).
'Info' is zero-length (i.e., not included), and OGA ID is 4-bit.
s4, para 2: 'The 2022 forthcoming ...' is not future proof. Suggest adding an
RFC editor note to remove '2022 forthcoming' during editing.
the doc is in ASTM editor's hands now. But we all know about final
editing processes!
Does this resolve your concern:
Note to RFC Editor: This, and all references to F3411 need to be
updated to this new version which is in final ASTM editing. A new
link and replacement text will be provided when it is published.
s5, para 1: s/does not intent/does not intend/
fixed
s5: The examples should be using the 'example' top level domain.
It was the authors' intent to show an example of an aviation related top
level domain. Is such an intention incompatible with FQDN examples?
Note that icao.int IS the current ICAO domain. It is not established,
at this time, that DETs will be in this TLD. It IS being discussed in
ICAO, and the authors are part of that discussion.
s5, para 7: The phrase 'If we assume a prefix of 2001:30::/28,' is confusing.
This prefix is the one the document is asking IANA to allocate for the HHITs so
I suggest 'Using the allocated prefix for HHITs TBD6 [suggested value
2001:30::/28] (See Section 3.1)'.
Done
s8.1, last item: 'False?': A decision needs to be taken on what value should
be here.
I check in 7343, sec 6 and there 'False' is used. I don't know this
part of IANA considerations and need guidance.
s9.1, para 4: Is 'multilateration' sufficiently well understood to be used
without explanation?
In aviation. See beginning of the reply. I am defining it in
draft--drip-crowd-sourced-rid
App A, para 1: s/EU/The EU/ (2 places).
Done
And thank you for your review.
Bob
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
