Thanks for the review Sean!
I've updated the doc with your comments:
Detailed responses inline.
David
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:03 AM Sean Turner <sean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Has Nits
Hi,
David wanted to make it really easy on me and get as much early input as he
could get by sending a msg to the TLS list asking for comments [0]. Version
-02 addressed those comments.
I'm no babel expert, but I did take the time to read/skim the base protocol
document to get more familiar with it as well as re-read the babel-tls draft.
The tl;dr here is that babel is multicast but DTLS is not so changes to babel
are needed.
To clarify, the changes to make Babel work over unicast have all gone into
the base spec: draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis
Here are my comments in no particular order. No show stoppers here.
0) Since DTLS is in the RFC Editor's Abbreviations List - I think you can get
away with: Babel Routing Protocol over DTLS But, that's up to you.
I personally prefer spelling it out, but I don't feel too strongly about it.
1) (IEGS food fight alert) I see that the updates header updates 6126bis. Not
sure how this will fly in the face of the draft IESG Statement [1].
Thanks for pointing this out. We'll follow any guidance the IESG gives us
during their review.
2) (This might just be document organization) The applicability section kind of
jumped out at me because there's also an applicability draft. Further, it and
6126bis says the HMAC mechanism is preferred. I'd just drop the entire section
;)
The authors felt we should insist that HMAC is better suited for many deployments
as it better fits with the traditional Babel multicast model. The applicability draft
focuses on Babel itself.
3) s2.1 - maybe add a pointer to the IANA considerations section.
Done
4) s2.1 - Because you're doing client authentication do you need say anything
about the type of cert, whether certificate_authorities,
signature_algorithms_cert, signature_algorithms should be sent (for 1.3
connections)?
We've had this conversation on the Babel mailing list, and we landed on having the
babel-dtls draft not define any of these, punting that to the usage profiles drafts.
For example, the Babel Homenet profile draft will define all of these.
5) s4 - add that IANA is requested to point to this specification for the
reference.
Done
6) AppA - I think you might need to tweak the last sentence in light 1.3?
Unfortunately DTLS 1.3 hasn't been published yet, and I'd rather not make
assumptions on what the RFC will say (even though we're pretty sure the
handshake won't change between the current draft and RFC). If it gets
published as RFC before this document does, I'll make these changes.
Cheers,
spt
[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tIaK0rgm5zCVuYmLm5qsCIvKXKw
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-1u_1-peHKAmUDuLyGAJYu0fPCE
