Subject: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-call-home-14

From: Sean Turner via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:47:01 -0700

Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Ready

Hi! Reviewing this because I got asked. I will note that it appears this
document has already been through IETF LC, SECDIR, and GENART among others.

These two are pretty minor (and look like a secret secdir review):

1. I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis refers to DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13}. Should
this I-D also refer to DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13} in s1? Pretty sure
changing the reference isn't going to slow down publication because this I-D
normatively references I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.

2. Assuming that the answer is yes and you could use (D)TLS1.3 with this
protocol, I think you need to say something about or refer to the early data
concerns (see s7.2 of I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis). You might consider just
expand the 2nd sentence in the 1st para of s8 to also refer to s7.2 or
I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis?

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:28:20 -0700

Hi Sean,

> I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis?

Thanks for spotting these; they are good questions to ask (it's what I get
for not advancing this document until after DTLS 1.3 got approved).

My first reeaction is that there's not a clear reason to pick one route or
the other, but I could be missing something.  (I agree that changing the
reference is unlikely to slow down publication.)

-Ben

---

From: tirumal reddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:13:04 +0530

Thanks Sean for the review. Please see inline

> normatively references I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.

Yes, I will update the draft to refer to DTLS 1.3.

> I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis ?
>

Sure, I will update the draft to discuss early data.

Cheers,
-Tiru