[anonsec] WG-LC: draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-04

[Yu-Shun Wang]

Hi, Miika,

Thanks for the comments. Some answers inline...

Miika Komu wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Julien Laganier wrote:

>> I finally managed to read the document, and I thought
>> it well written and ready to be sent to IESG.
> 
> Agree. Some editorial nits below.
> 
> I had some troubles in understanding initially the loosely defined term 
> "authentication" in the context of the draft but I think it is now more 
> clear. Particularly, the term "PKI" is mentioned quite late in the 
> draft, which is IMHO connected to the authentication term and to the 
> motivation of the whole draft.

Yes, these terms are used in the context of IPsec, which
I hope should be quite clear from the intro. But please
let me know if any of the specific usage in the text is
confusing.

As for PKI, I think this is the relevant text (bottom of page 2):

"                                                          Furthermore,
    authenticated credentials such as certificates signed by
    certification authorities (CA) can be cumbersome and expensive to
    obtain.
"

I hope we can get away with it without explaining what PKI is
and the problems with PKI. But also feel free to comment and
suggest text. :-)

> HIP is mentioned in section 2.2.1 briefly. Perhaps you could also 
> mention that HIP has implicit channel binding mechanisms and reference 
> RFC4423, HIP base draft or draft-ietf-hip-applications-00. In addition, 
> the claim "such modifications are, at best, temporary patches to the 
> ubiquitous vulnerability to spoofing attacks" requires some further 
> explanation at least in the context of HIP.

Agreed with HIP and channel binding part. But IMHO, these are
more subtle (you said "implicit" :-)) points that probably
should be covered in the CB doc for more details and comparison.

Also noted the second point on "temporary patches" re. HIP:

s/Such modifications/The TCP-specific modifications/

Would this work?

Thanks,

yushun