Hi, Thank you Martin. We are working on this.
Francois > On 12 Feb 2015, at 02:24, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: > > And because I hit send too soon, here's more... > > I think that this is ready. I have a couple of major concerns: > > Major General 1. > > However, I would like to see more consideration given to forward > compatibility. There are a lot of normative statements regarding what > MUST be included in the file, but no actions described for a receiver. > That means that it is hard to establish expectations regarding file > format evolution. If the file is rejected when the version isn't > "CDNI/1.0", then that makes changes to that field impossible (and the > specification of ABNF for it somewhat pointless). > > Major Specific 2. > > An implementation of the CDNI Logging interface MUST support the > TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite ( [RFC5288]). > > Please don't do that. There are mandatory to implement cipher suites > in all the specs you cite and you don't need anything special here. I > have no problem with recommending PFS suites, but you might be better > served there by citing the uta TLS usage draft: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp > > S 3.4.1 > o cs(<HTTP-header-name>): > HTTP header fields, esp. in HTTP/2 can contain HTAB, even if that > isn't permitted by the grammar. You probably want to describe how > that is handled. > > Bottom of P33 (won't adding the established-origin directive > invalidate the MD5? What do you expect to happen there? (I see two > choices, it would help if you could even *hint* at what you would > prefer implementations to do). > > Nit: HTTP/2 not HTTP/2.0 > > Question: There is no mention made of range requests, for which this > might be well suited, particularly if files get large. > > I note the privacy considerations are pretty reasonable. I'd be much > happier if IP anonymization were not optional though. > > > > On 12 February 2015 at 12:02, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-cdni-logging-15 >> Reviewer: Martin Thomson >> Review Date: 2015-02-12 >> IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-18 >> IESG Telechat date: (if known) >> >> Summary: >> >> Major issues: >> >> Minor issues: >> >> S3.1 needs to define the basic atom that is used for the logging file. >> It appears as though the atom is an octet. >> >> S3.2 uses the wildcard ABNF rule (i.e., <text....>) too aggressively. >> RECLINE (a potentially confusing name) could be more strictly defined. >> >> <CDNI Logging File> = 1*<DIRGROUP RECGROUP> >> >> ... is not valid and could be: >> >> CDNI-LOG-FILE = 1*(DIRGROUP / RECGROUP) >> >> That implies that an empty file is not valid. I'd have thought that * >> rather than 1* would be better. >> >> S3.3 again uses wildcard rules too aggressively. DIRNAME (not the >> unix command) should be defined more explicitly, even if it is just to >> specify what characters are allowed. Use text to further constrain >> it. As it stands, a generic processor cannot know that the name >> doesn't permit the inclusion of (for instance) ":" or CRLF. A common >> method is to define something like this as: >> >> DIRNAME = Version-directive / UUID-directive / ... / extension-directive >> >> More commonly, go up a level and define directive using the choice. >> That way, each directive can define a name and value together using >> ABNF. e.g. >> >> Version-directive = "Version" ":" HTAB "CDNI" "/" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT >> >> I wouldn't be so prescriptive about the version format. Unless there >> are specific semantics you want to extract from each digit. >> >> What is a receiver expected to do if the version *isn't* CDNI/1.0 ? >> Discard the entire file? That doesn't seem like a good way to ensure >> forward compatibility. >> >> UUID: this a Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) >> from the UUID Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace specified >> in [RFC4122]) for the CDNI Logging File. >> >> I don't know how to apply this. Is it the UUID portion of the URN or a URN? >> >> Please don't use MUST here: If the >> two values are equal, then the received CDNI Logging File MUST >> be considered non-corrupted. >> >> MD5 collisions are easy to manufacture. I'd also drop the MUST from >> the following sentence. >> >> S3.4: more wildcards >> >> S3.4.1: I wouldn't worry about HTTP/2 being special here. All that >> speculation is painful, especially since HTTP/2 will likely be >> published before this document. Better to just cite it and avoid >> getting caught up in the details. >> >> >> >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> There are lots of uses of lowercase "may". >> >> Page 6 has a few instances of missing hyphens in dCDN3/dCDN2 etc... >> S6.2.1: chunck >> >> S3.1 the DATE/TIME rules can/should reference RFC 3339 >> >> S3.3 using ":" HTAB as a separator makes it hard to construct these >> files manually. >> >> S3.4 use of "c:" in combination with the unordered list is confusing >> when the prefix is actually "c-". Maybe use the string "c-" quotes >> and all to denote the prefix. >> >> S3.4.1 citing RFC 7230 is sufficient for HTTP/1.1; and probably for >> HTTP in general at this moment. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
