Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10

From: Russ Housley via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:16:30 -0700

Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Almost Ready

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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2020-09-11
IETF LC End Date: 2020-09-23
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Major Concerns:

In Section 2.2, the discussion of DNS names comes out of the blue.  In
RFC 4941, there was context for this discussion that has been dropped
from this document.  Some context is needed.

Minor Concerns:

The Abstract says: "This document describes an extension that ...".
It should state what protocol is being extended.  I believe this is an
extension for SLAAC.

Nits:

Section 1, first paragraph says: "... in [RFC7721],[RFC7217], and
RFC7707."  All three should be references.

In addition, essentially this same sentence appears at the end of
Section 2.1.  I'm not sure the second one adds value.

Section 1.1, last paragraph says: '... and not to "globally reachable"
as defined in [RFC8190].'  I think you want to say that this term does
not imply "globally reachable" as defined in [RFC8190].  That is, it
might be globally reachable, but it might not.

IDnits reports:

** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
   2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
   when there are no actions for IANA.)

== The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the
   _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if
   approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 03:00:13 -0300

Hello, Russ,

Thanks a lot for your comments! In-line....

> Review result: Almost Ready
[....]
> from this document.  Some context is needed.

I reared the text, but I don't find it as "coming out of the blue". I 
guess one could add something to Section 2.1 to include DNS names... 
but, at the end of the day, the name is just another identifier.

Or put another way, I'm not sure what's the "context" I would add if 
asked to.

Thoughts?

> It should state what protocol is being extended.  I believe this is an

Will tweak to "..describes an extension to Stateless Address 
Autoconfiguration in IPv6"

> RFC7707."  All three should be references.

Fixed.

> might be globally reachable, but it might not.

I could tweak to "..not imply 'global reachability' as defined in..".. 
but then RFC8190 only defines "globally reachable".

May be better to tweak the original text to:
'..and not to "globally reachable" addresses, as defined...'

?

>     approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

Fixed.

Thanks a lot!

Regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2020 13:46:30 -0400

Fernando:

> I reared the text, but I don't find it as "coming out of the blue". I guess one could add something to Section 2.1 to include DNS names... but, at the end of the day, the name is just another identifier.
> 
> Or put another way, I'm not sure what's the "context" I would add if asked to.
> 
> Thoughts?

This point from RFC 4941 is what I was talking about.

   One of the requirements for correlating seemingly unrelated
   activities is the use (and reuse) of an identifier that is
   recognizable over time within different contexts.  IP addresses
   provide one obvious example, but there are more.  Many nodes also
   have DNS names associated with their addresses, in which case the DNS
   name serves as a similar identifier.  Although the DNS name
   associated with an address is more work to obtain (it may require a
   DNS query), the information is often readily available.  In such
   cases, changing the address on a machine over time would do little to
   address the concerns raised in this document, unless the DNS name is
   changed as well (see Section 4).
> Will tweak to "..describes an extension to Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6"
> 
> 
> 
>> Nits:
> I could tweak to "..not imply 'global reachability' as defined in..".. but then RFC8190 only defines "globally reachable".
> 

That is an improvement.  Thanks.

>>    approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

Russ

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:39:14 -0300

Hi, Russ,

On 13/9/20 14:46, Russ Housley wrote:
>>GRANT ALL ON wp_si6networks.* TO 'wp_si6networks'@'localhost';

I see.

How about if we add back these bits, with the text resulting in:
---- cut here ----
    One of the requirements for correlating seemingly unrelated
    activities is the use (and reuse) of an identifier that is
    recognizable over time within different contexts.  IP addresses
    provide one obvious example, but there are more.

    Many nodes have DNS names associated with their addresses, in which
    case the DNS name serves as a similar identifier.  Although the DNS
    name associated with an address is more work to obtain (it may
    require a DNS query), the information is often readily available.  In
    such cases, changing the address on a machine over time would do
    little to address the concerns raised in this document, unless the
    DNS name is changed as well (see Section 4).

    Web browsers and servers typically exchange "cookies"
    with each other [RFC6265].  Cookies allow web servers to correlate a
    current activity with a previous activity.  One common usage is to
    send back targeted advertising to a user by using the cookie supplied
    by the browser to identify what earlier queries had been made (e.g.,
    for what type of information).  Based on the earlier queries,
    advertisements can be targeted to match the (assumed) interests of
    the end-user.
---- cut here ----

?

Would this address your concern?

Thanks!

Regards,

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:08:38 -0400

> On Sep 16, 2020, at 7:39 AM, Fernando Gont <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Russ,
> 

Yes, thanks.

Russ