Re: Review of GIST over SCTP and DTLS - updated

Okey. Just make it clear in the text that MA ID 4 is never used alone 
but always coupled with a transport protocol in the stack proposal.

Jukka

On 03/25/2010 07:00 PM, Xiaoming Fu wrote:
> Hi Jukka,
>
> The GIST spec tells how one could "stack" a multitude of security and
> transport protocols as MA protocol IDs, via the "Stack-Proposal" and
> "Stack-Config-Data".
>
> To add: This has also been documented in the extensibility draft
> currently being IETF last call (which is good!).
>
> Xiaoming
> On 3/25/2010 6:29 PM, Jukka Manner wrote:
>> Hi Xiaoming,
>>
>> Maybe I'm not getting it, but how do you differentiate in the proposal
>>
>> 1. SCTP
>> 2. SCTP with DTLS security
>> 3. DCCP with DTLS security
>>
>> If DTLS is it's own MA ID, then you always need to specify in addition
>> which underlying transport is used with it?
>>
>> Jukka
>>
>> On 03/25/2010 05:24 PM, Xiaoming Fu wrote:
>>> Hi Jukka,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your comments.
>>>
>>> We will address issues your raised and submit a new version asap, with a
>>> clarification to your last part comments:
>>> > - 9. IANA section: name the MA protocol 4 differently, we could also
>>> > have DCCP and DTLS. Thus, MA protocol 4 is DTLS over SCTP."
>>> nsis/current/msg08493.html
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web
>>> Earlier the WG has commented on this, and seems to have agreed on
>>> identifying DTLS as a separate MA (thus the ID changed its name as
>>> well), which can be used for SCTP and other transport mechanisms in the
>>> future:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web//nsis/current/msg08483.html
>>>
>>> I think this way might make more sense, as it allows a stacked MAs
>>> (alike TLS vs TCP).
>>> What do you think?
>>> Xiaoming
>>> On 3/25/2010 5:00 PM, Jukka Manner wrote:
>>>> Hi Xiaoming,
>>>>
>>>> I have reviewed the draft and would like to see the following things
>>>> fixed before we can conclude that the draft is ready to go forward:
>>>>
>>>> - Introduction:
>>>> * what are these "other issues" of TCP? Please clarify.
>>>> * "...especially if deployment over the public Internet is
>>>> contemplated": I don't quite get this statement. SCTP, as DCCP, does
>>>> not
>>>> natively get through firewalls (nor NATs), so SCTP is not directly
>>>> applicable to the Internet at large, on the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> - S3.4: s/"was able to remain"/"was able to retain"/
>>>>
>>>> - 5.1: In practice the multihoming support of SCTP is not that
>>>> beneficial. Since NSIS is about signaling on the data path, and if that
>>>> data path fails, it doesn't really the application if the state can
>>>> still be refreshed using an alternative path. The only benefit of
>>>> multihoming might be that the state on the failed path can be more
>>>> quickly torn down using the multihoming capability of SCTP. So, please
>>>> be more clear on this, the current text goes back and forth on the
>>>> topic.
>>>>
>>>> - 9. IANA section: name the MA protocol 4 differently, we could also
>>>> have DCCP and DTLS. Thus, MA protocol 4 is DTLS over SCTP.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jukka
>>
>

-- 
Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD.  Phone:  +358+(0)9+470 22481
Aalto University                  Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
Department of Communications      Fax:    +358+(0)9+470 22474
and Networking (Comnet)           Office: G320a (Otakaari 5A)
P.O. Box 13000, FIN-00076 Aalto   E-mail: [email protected]
Finland                           www.netlab.hut.fi/~jmanner/