Subject: [karp] Comments on draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table

From: William Atwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:05:02 -0500

In the spirit of the chairs' plea to read and comment on the WG
documents, I have read the crypto-key-table document carefully.
Herewith some comments, which hopefully will be useful to the authors,
even this late in the cycle.

I have also made a number of comments on formatting and grammatical
issues directly to the authors.

Note that I will use the abbreviation CKT to stand for the phrase
"crypto key table".

Technical comments

I am perfectly at ease with the restriction of this document to the case
of routing protocols, rather than general security protocols.  KARP's
mandate is restricted to routing protocols, so a solution specific to
routing protocols is appropriate.

Section 1, para 1, line 14.  "should be used" -> "MUST be used"  (Since
this document is on the standards track, and since this uniformity of
presentation is a key requirement for the CKT, I believe that we have to
require MUST here.)

Section 2, bullet "Interfaces", line 6.  "is specified by the
implementation"  It is unclear what implementation is under discussion
here.  The protocol implementation, the operating system implementation,
???  Interface definitions are a characteristic that is (as is stated)
independent of the specific protocol, but it is unclear what we should
say that they _do_ depend on.  See also the comment on Section 4, last
paragraph.

Section 2, bullet "Protocol", line 1.  Upon reading the phrase "single
security protocol" in this line, I first felt that this phrase should
have been changed when the document scope was reduced from "security
protocols" to "routing protocols".  However, in some cases, it seems
that the protocol named in this field might be "TCP-AO".  In other
cases, it is reasonable to assume that the protocol where the key will
be used is some mode of IPsec.  In still further cases, the protocol
where the key is used is the Routing Protocol itself (for example,
OSPFv2 with Authentication Trailer based security).  Therefore, I raise
the issue of should this phrase be "single security protocol" or "single
Routing Protocol" or something entirely different?

Section 2, various bullets.  I have a concern about the use of phrases
such as "the protocol defines" in Section 2.  I believe that the correct
phrasing is "the protocol specification defines".  If the community
agrees, a number of sentences in various bullets will have to be corrected.

Section 4, para under the bullets, line 2.  "shared among all protocols
on an implementation"  Should this be "shared among all protocols on a
device"?  See also the comment on Section 2, bullet "Interfaces".

  Bill

-- 
Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185     email:[email-masked]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:40:02 -0500

>>>>> "William" == William Atwood <[email-masked]> writes:

    William> In the spirit of the chairs' plea to read and comment on
    William> the WG documents, I have read the crypto-key-table document
    William> carefully.  Herewith some comments, which hopefully will be
    William> useful to the authors, even this late in the cycle.

Unless directed otherwise by chairs, I will address comments that regard
changes introduced during IESG evaluation.
I will take the other comments as too late.

I will address some of the formatting comments recieved separately,
within the constraints that I have a small window of time available to
get a draft out today and I really want that to happen.
Many of the other issues will be handled by the RFC editor: they are
quite good.
Some are actually more technical than formatting.
I do think a lot of these issues would be good to consider if we ever do
crypto-key-tables BIS.

    William> Section 2, bullet "Interfaces", line 6.  "is specified by
    William> the implementation" It is unclear what implementation is
    William> under discussion here.  The protocol implementation, the
    William> operating system implementation, ???  Interface definitions
    William> are a characteristic that is (as is stated) independent of
    William> the specific protocol, but it is unclear what we should say
    William> that they _do_ depend on.  See also the comment on Section
    William> 4, last paragraph.

    William> Section 2, various bullets.  I have a concern about the use
    William> of phrases such as "the protocol defines" in Section 2.  I
    William> believe that the correct phrasing is "the protocol
    William> specification defines".  If the community agrees, a number
    William> of sentences in various bullets will have to be corrected.

    William> Section 4, para under the bullets, line 2.  "shared among
    William> all protocols on an implementation" Should this be "shared
    William> among all protocols on a device"?  See also the comment on
    William> Section 2, bullet "Interfaces".

    William>   Bill

    William> -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.  tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
    William> Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830
    William> Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering
    William> Concordia University EV 3.185
    William> email:[email-masked] 1455 de Maisonneuve
    William> Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal,
    William> Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
    William> _______________________________________________ karp
    William> mailing list [email-masked]
    William> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp