Review of draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,

I am reviewing draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07 for the Independent Stream.

Overall, the document is well-written. I suggest reviewing the usage of the RFC 2119 key words as it makes the document look like a document about compliance. The intended status of the document is "Experimental". How long will this experiment last?

The Abstract states that "proposals discussed in the IETF [which] have identified benefits to more distinctly identifying the hosts that are hidden behind a shared address/prefix sharing device or application-layer proxy". Is the sentence:

  (i)   misleading

  (ii)  one-sided

  (iii) any other alternative

I'll choose (ii) as the sentence mentions benefits only. I did not see any mention of "IETF" in Section 1. Why is "IETF" mentioned in the Abstract? I looked at the proposals referenced in draft-williams-exp-tcp-host-id-opt-07 and they are from one of the authors of this draft and from the same companies. Isn't that self-citation?

From Section 1 of the draft:

  "The purpose of this document is to describe a TCP HOST_ID option
   that is currently deployed on the Internet using the TCP
   experimental option codepoint including discussion of related
   design, deployment, and privacy considerations."

I suggest focusing on the above if that is the purpose of the document. Could the authors please explain which of the bullet points in Section 2 of RFC 4846 is applicable to this document?

  "Specification of multiple option formats to serve the purpose of
   host identification increases the burden for potential implementers
   and presents interoperability challenges as well.  This document
   defines a common TCP option format that supersedes all three of the
   above proposals."

Does that mean that Akamai, Cisco and France Telecom have agreed on a common TCP option format and have implemented that?

  "The option defined in this document uses the TCP experimental option
   codepoint sharing mechanism defined in [RFC6994] and is intended to
   allow broad deployment of the mechanism on the public Internet."

Is it the opinion of the authors of this draft that it isn't worthwhile to get IETF Consensus on a mechanism for broad deployment on the public Internet?

In Section 1.2:

  "In particular, documentation of the mechanism is expected to provide
   opportunities for engagement with a broader range of both application
   and middleware implementations in order to develop a more complete
   picture of how well the option meets the use-case requirements."

How does publication in the Independent Stream provide "opportunities for engagement"?

In Section 4.1:

  "The HOST_ID option value MUST correlate to IP addresses and/or TCP
   port numbers that were changed by the inserting host/device (i.e.,
   some of the IP address and/or port number bits are used to generate
   the HOST_ID)."

The above is a requirement for "fingerprinting". The document then provides examples that satisfy the requirement. I suggest making the requirement clear instead of taking a "requirement by example" approach.

In Section 6:

  "The content of the HOST_ID option SHOULD NOT be used for purposes
   that require a trust relationship between the sender and the receiver
   (e.g. billing and/or subscriber policy enforcement)."

Why shouldn't the HOST_ID be used for purposes that require trust relationships? The sentence which follows the quoted text (see above) states that the "SHOULD" is a requirement. From what I understand, the paragraph is explaining the difference between "SHOULD" and "MUST". I got lost in reading the Security Considerations Section.

Section 7 states that NAT "is sometimes specifically intended to provide anonymity". Are there any references for that?

  "The HOST_ID option MUST NOT provide client identification information
   that was not publicly visible in IP packets for the TCP flows processed
   by the inserting host, such as subscriber information linked to the IP
   address."

Why is the above a RFC 2119 "MUST NOT"?

Why is Section 8 relevant? This draft is not intended to be an IETF specification.

"Fance" is misspelled.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]