Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-babel-dtls-05

From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:50:11 -0700

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: 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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-babel-dtls-05
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2019-06-25
IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-04
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

The document is Ready from a Gen-ART perspective. A couple of unclear /
redundant statements are mentioned in the 'nits/editorial comments' bullet
below.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In section 2.1:

> The default port
   for Babel over DTLS is registered with IANA as the "babel-dtls" port
   (UDP port TBD, see Section 4), and the port exchanging unencrypted
   Babel traffic is registered as the "babel" port (UDP port 6696).

A reference would be desirable here.

2. In section 2.4

> Nodes MUST silently ignore any unprotected
   packet sent over unicast.  When parsing an unprotected packet, a node
   MUST silently ignore all TLVs that are not of type Hello.  Nodes MUST
   also silently ignore any unprotected Hello with the Unicast flag set.

Is the last sentence necessary? Is this case not covered by the statement in
the first sentence?

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:29:16 -0700

Hello Dan, and thanks for your review. Comments inline.

> A reference would be desirable here.

What reference do you have in mind? This paragraph already has a
reference to Section 4 (IANA Considerations).

> Is the last sentence necessary? Is this case not covered by the statement

The Unicast flag is a bit in the Babel packet. This statement instructs
nodes
to ignore a Hello TLV which was received over multicast but has the unicast
flag set.

Thanks,
David

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:40:51 +0300

Thanks for the quick reply.

See in-line.

regards,

Dan

> reference to Section 4 (IANA Considerations).

the section in the Babel spec that defines the "babel" port (UDP port 6696,
see ....)

> to ignore a Hello TLV which was received over multicast but has the
> unicast flag set.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 12:19:39 -0700

Thanks Dan. I've pushed a commit with your suggestions:
https://github.com/jech/babel-drafts/commit/8d6a6fc05ce4c621b38d2c7621c4157300380078

We'll upload -06 at the end of this round of comments.

David

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:41 AM Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> the section in the Babel spec that defines the "babel" port (UDP port
> 6696, see ....)
>
>
>
>>
>>> 2. In section 2.4
>>>