IETF conflict review for draft-irtf-icnrg-terminology
conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-terminology-00
Yes
(Alvaro Retana)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2020-01-08)
Sent
This is the right conflict-review response. Comments on the document itself: Section 2 *Trust*: Data authenticity is distinct from data trustworthiness, though the two concepts are related. A packet is authentic if it has a valid name-to-content binding. A packet is trustworthy, i.e., it comes from a reputable or trusted origin, if this binding is valid in the context of a trust model. Section 6 discusses this further. I think I see what is intended here, but distinguishing between "valid" and "valid in the context of a trust model" is a pretty subtle differentiation. Some more discussion about a given named entity being expected to produce certain content might help (but then again, might not). *Forwarding Plane*: The canonical way of implementing packet forwarding in an ICN network relies on three data structures that capture a node's state: a Forwarding Interest Table (FIB), a Pending Interest Table (PIT), and a Content Store (CS). It also utilizes Interest forwarding strategies which takes input from both FIB and measurements to make Interest forwarding decisions. When a node nit: "take input" to match "strategies" plural. Section 3.1 *Data packet Immutability*: After a data packet is created, the cryptographic hash binding the name to the content ensures that if either the content or the name changes, that change will be detected and the packet discarded. nit: previous discussion referred to the name-to-content binding as a "signature", not as a "hash". Section 3.5 *Nonce*: A field of an Interest packet that transiently names an Interest instance (instance of Interest for a given name). Note: the use "nonce" as defined here for NDN does not imply semantics that satisfy all the properties of a cryptographic nonce as defined in, e.g. [RFC4949]. RFC 4949 does not have a definition for "cryptographic nonce", so I assume just the regular definition for "nonce" is the intended reference. The only required attribute there is "random or non-repeating", with liveness guarantee and replay protection being only the "usual usage" (i.e., not required). While I assume I don't fully understand the nuance of ICNRG nonce usage, my understanding is that they are intended to be non-repeating, at least within some time window, and serve to tie specific expressions of interest to data responses. That is not exactly the "replay protection" of RFC 4949, though it is closely related, and I would argue that even the "non-repeating within a time window" property suffices to keep the ICN usage within the RFC 4949 definition. Which is a long way of saying that I don't think this much disclaimer is needed. Section 6 While the terms defined in this specification do not in and of themselves present new security considerations, the architectures which utilize the terms most certainly do. Readers should look at those specifications (e.g. [RFC8569], [NDN]) where various security considerations are addressed in detail. This is a great formulation; thank you!
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent