[DMM] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05
Vincent Roca via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 27 February 2020 14:57 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F00D3A0AF8; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:57:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Vincent Roca via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: dmm@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.118.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <158281546210.2262.1845082722013562869@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:57:42 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/aMG55HGyur8vcg3pSCX4nWIBMxQ>
Subject: [DMM] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:57:49 -0000
Reviewer: Vincent Roca Review result: Has Nits Hello, I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate’s ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: Has Nits Thank you for the clarification of the Security Considerations section. I just have a minor comment and a typo. - It is said (section 6): "The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit this amplification risk." I agree, but where do you intend to apply pacing? 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? It's a bit unclear. - Typo: remove one "exist" in sentence: "there may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs exist." Regards, Vincent
- [DMM] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dmm-pm… Vincent Roca via Datatracker
- Re: [DMM] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dm… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO