Subject: [P2PSIP] draft-ietf-p2psip-base-12 (7)

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:03:42 -0800

More...

A.45. Section 9

The hash function is never defined for the chord overlay.

A.46. Section 10.3 "application/pkix-cert

I think that a reference to RFC 2585 should be added here.

Nits:
- ----

- - Section 5.3.1.1 The definition of IpAddressPort is missing a "};" at the end
of the select.

- - Section 5.3.4 The definition of SignerIdentityValue is missing a "};" at the
end of the select.

- - Section 5.4.2.2

s/public struct/struct/

- - Section 5.5.1.1 The definition of IceCandidate is missing a ";" at the end of
the select.

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: [email-masked]
Professional email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:03:12 -0800

Another round.  That will probably be the last one until the publication of -13
as I am running out of margins for annotations on my copy of -12 :-(

A.47. Section 6.3

The four policies defined in p2psip-base consistently says that "[a] given value
MUST be written (or overwritten) if and only if the request is signed ..."
Additional access control policies defined elsewhere use similar wording.

But should not the StoredData signature be used instead of the request
signature?  When replicating the data, the signer of the StoreRequest will be
different from the signer of the original request and so the test will no longer
work.  Section 6.4.1.1 says that "[a] peer MUST [check that] [e]ach element is
signed by a credential which is authorized to write this kind at this
Resource-ID.", which seems to confirm that this is the element's signature that
must be checked, not the request's.

A.48. Section 13.7

The "RELOAD Data Model" registry contains a Code value which is on fact never
used anywhere.  I think it would be simpler to remove this (like it is done for
the Access Control Policies) and redefine DataModel in section 6.2 like this:

enum { single_value, array, dictionary } DataModel;

BTW, the select in 6.4.2.1 uses "model" instead of "DataModel."

A.49. Section 10.1.1

The Data Model, Access Control Policy and Kind names permitted in the schema
does not and cannot match the definitions in the various IANA registries,
because of the case.  E.g. the Data Model registry contains "USER-MATCH" but the
schema only accept "user-match".  I suggest to replace the definition of
"user-match" and other strings by the following:

access-control-type |= xsd:token { pattern =
"[uU][sS][eE][rR]-[mM][aA][tT][cC][hH]" }

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:16:38 -0700

On Mar 7, 2011, at 9:03 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> More...
> 
> A.45. Section 9
> 

Ouch - how embarrassing :-) Added a section 9.2. I think that all implementation are using the top 128 bits not the bottom but please do check I got the text the in section 9.2 right. 

> I think that a reference to RFC 2585 should be added here.
done

> - - Section 5.3.1.1 The definition of IpAddressPort is missing a "};" at the end
fixed 

> - - Section 5.3.4 The definition of SignerIdentityValue is missing a "};" at the
Changed to following - check this looks right to you

 struct {
    select (identity_type) {
      case cert_hash;
        HashAlgorithm      hash_alg;              // From TLS
        opaque             certificate_hash<0..2^8-1>;
      /* This structure may be extended with new types if necessary*/
    };
  } SignerIdentityValue;

> s/public struct/struct/
fixed

> - - Section 5.5.1.1 The definition of IceCandidate is missing a ";" at the end of
fixed 

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk11qpoACgkQ9RoMZyVa61fx3wCfZK1U1zOWlSA13OPXoVmhrhsb
> mZ4AnAz+0E7ny/MI7CRvtKSOJpXg2XD+
> =gBto
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:56:29 -0600

> enum { single_value, array, dictionary } DataModel;
just removed it 

fixed

> "[uU][sS][eE][rR]-[mM][aA][tT][cC][hH]" }

I sort of hate the cause incentive stuff - it just seem to introduce bugs and some people do it and some mess it up and just use what is in the examples. Given this is all for machine not human consumptions, I moved it all to upper cases. If this breaks anyones implementation, lets talk sort out what to do. I only choose upper case over lower case as it seemed to match what was in the IANA registries. That contradicts the relaxNG but I don't think many people had used the relaxNG.