Re: [conex] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Stiemerling <> Thu, 01 October 2015 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F167E1B2C57; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X3C-b36Y-4de; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FFD61B2C4F; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so23296460wic.0; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bfe2f1lU2CG6gaf1RtrmuQxhh6Vdg/ngDSuPZyXiWzA=; b=tLfC3p9h6vlkOunGY2zYLf4h0nrjz+Z1/mtv42yi1X3wltEBmLfSG8Gkb1kKekEH7Q HV2ONhHH8TbqGcZckXlgfbYdV6Cc5CmcfsCv8gjP5TX1lW9tGsC4uVxXYTV/MWNh/96c OAJbgxGrIogxIZ/MY8/YcCzgOThvfzbpbIxJBSoG9EiQHC7T9o+10lhvrKRybOFYwWI/ 4PqsXPBLm8Rk3I8nHQIFp4+IQ8+IiIqNSggY3o7gEDJADMJxsSstTGzzIsC5VJhJ1A1b WuXjJpfFJYx6MxA8zmaaQnsC0VNJFQj7UP4yTWvfCUrB+HzrS23k4Qfgr3wXZbOGW6ru dZ9g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v10mr10387870wjy.1.1443690896727; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2001:1a80:280a:ab00:396c:b014:4d5f:ee5b]) by with ESMTPSA id d8sm3004622wiy.1.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ben Campbell <>, The IESG <>
References: <>
From: Martin Stiemerling <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 11:14:54 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [conex] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-conex-mobile-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Congestion Exposure working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:15:06 -0000

Hi Ben,

Am 30.09.15 um 23:16 schrieb Ben Campbell:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The security considerations section seems substantially incomplete. The
> phrase "include, but are not limited to" seems to indicate that people
> thought there were additional considerations. Please write them down, or
> explain why there really aren't additional considerations.

A bit more text can help here, though a number of threats might be 
obvious by now or might depend on the "version" of the mobile network.

However, I let the authors to get more text and suggestions to you.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> There is an IPR declaration that lists this as an "associated draft". I'm
> not sure what to make of that, but it was not mentioned in the shepherd
> review.

The IPR you are mention ( is sort 
of a spread shot across all conex documents. The shepherd write-up 
should have mentioned it, indeed.

However, the WG did and does know about this IPR. Use this as anchor in 
the mail archive if you are looking for it:

> This reads much like an advocacy white paper. There's useful information
> in it, but I would have preferred less of the marketing tone. But that's
> just me, and I don't expect that to change this late in the process.

ok, thanks.