Subject: Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-01.txt

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:40:12 +0000

I reviewed -01 and am happy with the resolution of my comments.
I have one comment on -01.  The following paragraph was added to
the security considerations in -01:
>   The DESCRIPTION option could be used to influence the PCP server's
>   behavior.  For example, if the DESCRIPTION option contains a certain
>   string the PCP server might allocate a mapping from a different IP
>   address pool or might allow (or disallow) the creation of the mapping
>   itself.  Such overloading of the DESCRIPTION option is out of scope
>   of this document.  If future documents make use of this option to
>   influence the PCP server decisions, it is the responsibility of those
>   documents to elaborate on the associated security considerations.

I think this paragraph should be removed for the following reasons:
* The document does not say anything about normalization or
    comparison rules for the UTF-8 string.  That's fine if it's only used for
    display purposes.   It's not fine if anything might use it to match
    (e.g., to test if it "contains a certain string").   As such, if this paragraph
    were retained I would want to agree on what the rules are in this
    document, and I'd rather be done and just say it's for display purposes
    as it does now.
* The paragraph doesn't really add anything related to security considerations.
* I think using the description would be the wrong way to choose a pool.
   We do not yet have consensus on suggesting any such thing.

As such, if this paragraph is removed then I think it's done.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-01.txt
> 
> Re-,
> 
> This new version integrates the comments received during the WGLC. The
> main changes are:
> 
> * Clarify the procedure to follow to update a description
> * Clarify the usage of empty DESCRIPTION option
> * Provide a suggested max length
> 
> + some editorial changes.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> >-----Message d'origine-----
> >De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de
> >[email-masked] Envoyé : mardi 21 mai 2013 07:48 À :
> >[email-masked] Cc : [email-masked] Objet : [pcp] I-D Action:
> >draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-01.txt
> >
> >
> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol Working Group
> >of the IETF.
> >
> >	Title           : PCP Description Option
> >	Author(s)       : Mohamed Boucadair
> >                          Reinaldo Penno
> >                          Dan Wing
> >	Filename        : draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-01.txt
> >	Pages           : 6
> >	Date            : 2013-05-20
> >
> >Abstract:
> >   This document extends Port Control Protocol (PCP) with the ability to
> >   associate a description with a PCP-instantiated mapping.  It does so
> >   by defining a new DESCRIPTION option.
> >
> >
> >
> >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-description-option
> >
> >There's also a htmlized version available at:
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-01
> >
> >A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-01
> >
> >
> >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >pcp mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>