Re: [DMM] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: (with COMMENT)

[CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

Thanks a lot for your review. Please see inline below my comments.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:51 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I support Mirja Kühlewind's and Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS position.
>

[CB] I've addressed all their points, hopefully in a way satisfactory to
them.


> ** Section 6. Per “The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit this
> amplification risk”, could you address Vincent Roca’s SECDIR Review (thank
> you!) question “should that pacing be on the In the incoming queue (i.e.,
> by
> delaying some PBU/PBA messages) or in the outgoing queue (i.e., to limit
> output
> traffic), or both?”
>

[CB] Done.


>
> ** Section 6.  To provide normative language:
> s/This requires security associations to exist between the involved MAARs/
> Hence, security associations are REQUIRED to exist between the involved
> MAARs/
>

[CB] Fixed, thanks.


>
> Editorial Nit:
> ** Section 6. s/there may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs exist/
> there
> may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs/
>
> [CB] Fixed, thanks.

Thanks a lot for your review!

Carlos