Hi Med, Thanks I am OK with your response only open one > administrator even if rejected. [Med] This is deployment-specific. For example, if conflict handling requires "notify an administrator for validation", there is no point to report again. [RE] Yes but for example "reject all" may cause an attack cancelling a valid filter, so it should also be notified to the administrator for validation. I did not see any discussion about this is the security section that will warn about such a possible attack that can happen for a specific policy. Roni -----Original Message----- From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 1:57 PM To: Datatracker on behalf of Roni Even; gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-dots-data-channel.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; dots@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27 Hi Roni, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Datatracker on behalf of Roni Even [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : jeudi 7 mars 2019 11:21 À : gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc : > draft-ietf-dots-data-channel.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > dots@xxxxxxxx Objet : Genart last call review of > draft-ietf-dots-data-channel-27 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > 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-dots-data-channel-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2019-03-07 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-13 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is ready with nits and one minor issue for publication as > a standard track RFC > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. In section 2 there is a discussion about conflicting filtering requests. [Med] I guess you meant section 3. I > think that this can be considered as an attack and should be mentioned > in the security section. [Med] Conflicts may be caused by various "legitimate" actions. Of course, as discussed in the Security section, an attacker who access to a DOTS client can do a lot of things such as installing some filters including conflicting ones. This is already reported in the security section. I also think that such a conflict must be reported to the > administrator even if rejected. [Med] This is deployment-specific. For example, if conflict handling requires "notify an administrator for validation", there is no point to report again. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. In figure 2 missing HTTP layer? [Med] No, that is on purpose. RESTCONF (which is an HTTP-based protocol) layer is sufficient. > 2. In section 6.1 "If the request is missing a mandatory attribute or > its contains " should be "it" instead of "its" 3. [Med] Thank you for catching this. Fixed. In section 7.3 "A DOTS client > periodically queries ...". I did not see any text about why this is > done is this a common behavior? how often? 4. [Med] This is left to implementations. We don't have any solid argument to recommend a value. After figure 29 "bound to a given ACL > as > shown in Figure 28 " I think it should be 27? [Med] This should be Figure 30. Fixed. Thanks. 5. In figure 31 > ""pending-lifetime": 8000 ," why 8000 and not 9080 as in figure 28? > [Med] This is because pending-lifetime was decremented since the GET in Figure 28 was issued. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
