Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-01.txt

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:46:32 -0400

Authors,

Upon review of the environment security requirements, I found a number of
items to comment upon.  Since the majority of these were spelling or
grammar, I chose to simply provide you a diff.

https://github.com/jhaas-pfrc/i2rs-2016/blob/jhaas/draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-01-comments/draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs/draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs.xml

The above github link will take you to a repository containing your draft
with edits.  The "master" branch contains the IETF sourced .xml and .txt
files.  Thus, you can clone this repository and get access to the diff.

Please note I have flagged some issues within the .xml as XXX JMH and that
these issues require separate attention.

I am also attaching a rfcdiff showing the suggested edits.

-- Jeff

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 01:01:01PM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System of the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : I2RS Environment Security Requirements
>         Authors         : Daniel Migault
>                           Joel Halpern
>                           Susan Hares
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 19
> 	Date            : 2016-04-04
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document provides environment security requirements for the I2RS
>    architecture.  Environment security requirements are independent of
>    the protocol used for I2RS.  As a result, the requirements provided
>    in this document are intended to provide good security practise so
>    I2RS can be securely deployed and operated.
> 
>    These security requirements are designated as environment security
>    requirements as opposed to the protocol security requirements.  The
>    reason to have separate document is that protocol security
>    requirements are intended to help the design of the I2RS protocol
>    whether the environment requirements are rather intended for
>    deployment or implementations.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:55:55 -0400

Jeff, thanks for the thorough review.

On the editorial matters, the edit to the definition of I2RS Plane seems 
somewhat off.  I understand why you did not like referring to it as the 
environment for the "process", particularly since there are multiple 
"processes" involved.  But one does not run an "architecture" in an 
environment either.  How about defining it as "The environment the I2RS 
components" are running on."?  Or maybe "The connected set of I2RS 
components" since the I2RS Plane is really that communication, not the 
underlay.

It is a bit awkward for either the authors or the WG to review the other 
notes, as apparently they are in the git but not in the diff (since they 
are only in the XML.)

Yours,
Joel

On 5/17/16 7:46 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> _______________________________________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 20:15:36 -0400

Joel,

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:55:55PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> On the editorial matters, the edit to the definition of I2RS Plane
> seems somewhat off.  I understand why you did not like referring to
> it as the environment for the "process", particularly since there
> are multiple "processes" involved.  But one does not run an
> "architecture" in an environment either.  How about defining it as
> "The environment the I2RS components" are running on."?  Or maybe
> "The connected set of I2RS components" since the I2RS Plane is
> really that communication, not the underlay.

I must admit to not having the best set of suggested wording here.  The main
thing that seemed wrong was the use of processes in the context of UNIX and
there's no guarantee that such an ecosystem is used to instantiate I2RS.

One suggestion may be to simply scrub the "flavor of UNIX" from the text and
simply continue to use "processes", perhaps being a bit more careful to
define what that means in context.

> It is a bit awkward for either the authors or the WG to review the
> other notes, as apparently they are in the git but not in the diff
> (since they are only in the XML.)

Fair point.  I am attaching the .xml.  I am also attaching a form of the
rfcdiff wherein the XXX comments have been exposed.  I am not pushing that
altered .xml in order to let you authors have a clean bit of xml to use for
your edits.

(Note that I encourage the authors to work from the git repository.  It
makes further rounds of edits easier.)

-- Jeff

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 20:12:39 -0400

Thanks Jeff.  If others can live with it, I can live with the simplified 
phrasing you propose for the definition.

Yours,
Joel