Hi Peter, We just published a new version (-06) that should address your review. Thanks, Justin On 6/7/23 18:50, Peter Yee via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Peter Yee 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-opsec-probe-attribution-05 Reviewer: Peter Yee Review Date: 2023-06-07 IETF LC End Date: 2023-06-08 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This informative specification indicates how good-intentioned researchers may alert receivers (or intermediaries) of their probe traffic as to what the probes are and how to contact the researchers. The document is reasonably well written, but it has some nits that should be corrected prior to publication. [Ready with nits] Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Page 1, Abstract, last sentence: rearrange “what is its purpose” to “what its purpose is” for parallel construction and ease of reading. Page 3, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change “parties” to “parties’” (if this should be plural) or “party’s” (if this should be singular). Page 3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “where” to “that”. Page 3, 2nd bullet item: change “what is its purpose” to “what its purpose is” for the same reasons as in the abstract. Page 4, 1st paragraph after the two bullet items: change “one line” to “one-line”. Page 3, section 3, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: Probe inclusion hasn’t even been discussed at this point, so “As an alternative” is not appropriate here. Either swap the in-band and out-of-band sections or reword. I prefer swapping, but it’s possible this already happened once and hence the odd phrasing considering the current ordering. Page 5, 1st, 2nd, and 5th bullet items: change the first “a” to “an” if the [RFCxxxx] reference is considered silent or all of them to “an” if the reference is expected to be read as part of the sentence. Page 6, 1st paragraph, last sentence at “multiple possibilities”: Are multiple in-band options allowed or suggested? Is there “concatenation” of multiple probe methods applied by different probe generators or for different research purposes? If so or even if not, a discussion here might be worthwhile. Page 6, section 5, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I’m not sure what is meant by “will”. Do you mean “intent”? Page 6, section 5, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: regarding “dynamic source addresses”, why would this be a problem? The web server would presumably be on the same IP address as probe generation, so, as the IP address changes, the web server would appear on the new address. There might be a short period where this isn’t the case, but it seems the overall inability to reach a web server for the out-of-band option is small unless the address changes frequently. Page 7, section 6, 1st paragraph: move “unsolicited” before “transit”. Page 7, section 6, 2nd paragraph: change “identity” to “identify”. Page 7, section 6, 2nd paragraph: It’s not clear to me that unsolicited transit parties necessarily have much recourse or that the probe sender can effect much change in their use other than not sending probes at all. Page 7, section 6, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: remove the space between “valid” and “?”. Page 7, section 7, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: move “would” before “this”.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
