[manet] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's Discuss on draft-ietf-manet- dlep-credit-flow-control-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Tue Mar 25 15:05:04 +0000 2025, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>    On 25/03/2025 14:49, Eric Kinzie wrote:
> 
>  Hi Gorry,
> 
>  On Mon Mar 24 12:01:28 -0700 2025, Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker wrote:
> 
>  Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
>  draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-18: Discuss
> 
>  When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>  email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>  introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
>  Please refer to [1]https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
>  for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
>  The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>  [2]https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control/
> 
> 
> 
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  DISCUSS:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  I was unaware of this work in Manet, and thank you for making an interesting
>  and useful specification. I have two concerns I’d like to discuss:
> 
>  1. The text says: “In the absence of a wildcard, a packet may not match any of
>  the data items and, in this case, SHOULD be dropped by the router.”.- Why is
>  this not a MUST? (If it needs to be a SHOULD, then please add text to explain
>  what happens whene there is no match and explain whether sending this pacekt
>  also consumens credit.)
> 
>  MUST seems appropriate.  I'll change this.
> 
>    Thanks.
> 
> 
>  2. If a packet is not matched and is dropped, ought it to be logged? (It would
>  be logged if there was no FID). Either way, the specification ought to explain
>  whether an entry in the log is to be expected.
> 
>  Currently, the cases where a log entry should be made are those where a
>  flow control data item is received, by either side, that contains a FID
>  not previously defined by the modem.  There is no logging based on what
>  is seen in the dataplane.  Should this still be called out explicitly?
> 
>    Understood. I do think it would help to just explain the logging entries.
>    Knowing what is being logged can be very helpful when comparing
>    implementations.

OK, I have added a statement, similar to my explanation above, to the
introduction.

> 
> 
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  COMMENT:
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  I don’t think the security mechanisms are sufficiently defined to be useful.
>  Please can you explain what threats these updates are expected to counter. This
>  currently leads to two very ineffective security considerations:
> 
>  The Security Considerations give an example of the type of threat to
>  which flow control might susceptible.  Other cases are given in DLEP
>  (8175) and are applicable, but not specific to flow control.
> 
>  Your last sentence ends with a colon, so I'm not sure if your comment
>  was truncated.
> 
>    The truncated part was only the text: "The transport layer security
>    mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can, with some updates, be applied to
>    this document." (There is a similar phrase related to Ethernet below this
>    text also.)
> 
>    I think the above current I-D text is likely just too terse for me to
>    understand if there is a missing something or not, especially the phrase
>    "with some updates", which made me wonder what sort of updates does this
>    imply ?
> 
>    Whereas, the text you wrote above is much clearer to me, and I think would
>    help others if in the document.

I have made similar clarifications to the Security Considerations.

>    Thanks for your prompt reply.
> 
>    If you submit a new I-D with these changes I'd be happy to change my
>    ballot position to "no objection" and not stand in the way of publication.
> 
>    Best wishes,
> 
>    Gorry

Thanks for the review.  Version 19 of the draft is available.

Eric

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]