Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-05.txt
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 30 November 2012 17:03 UTC
Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8FB21F8B91; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D+6WEfo7p65A; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E1121F8B67; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z20so287371dae.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=6ktjHCgE6fHmvkCp91eEKkKq/y9lvt3L9CvqJFkkLDA=; b=suvHF2VUbl4aOCMeiaGD/XWXNn8UTnyzFA7r0CflY2EJ3uDM+ctJKy/j04aSpQpwrg tuEan8Dh5SEIOSn/nA7Eh+NuuN2E7uE1WqV1mI+Ybw8LRkFW9x2i00zAReoSNHAN+9+2 EyRyhIYZdG5UdKSsUX2I6KudnRODl5jElAVdHDJ1ax5hCXIw8/iFInik+zbtyFTds1tp PPNQUIHEgyeDc7eR7+W1Q3bAKRq1lfKXUKPmedRLk3p7DM7SET467eDjcrFMkJNuIp4A 4EbG4802d8ySNiM9Oy6rTZtE8C46x6+7pdMSDkWgOnbb6WVoDXEfcDygVo+cSpkJ9ceS 6koQ==
Received: by 10.66.79.133 with SMTP id j5mr4675167pax.51.1354294998955; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.123] (c-24-6-180-144.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.180.144]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a8sm3182035paz.18.2012.11.30.09.03.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis-05.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-4-178157723"
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F60EDDFC-0612-4636-AFC7-3D7FD9052D74@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:15 -0800
Message-Id: <7B7C06EA-E5EB-4FD6-ADE6-1A8E38B11405@gmail.com>
References: <18E6B18A-D465-47C6-9E06-886DFBFA1F67@nostrum.com> <F53DCC9A-8AA1-42D4-BF19-88ABCCCA68A7@gmail.com> <3B3FEC40-3D96-4F77-A628-E80DFAEB2278@nostrum.com> <F60EDDFC-0612-4636-AFC7-3D7FD9052D74@gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 07:46:24 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-analysis.all@tools.ietf.org, "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org List" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:03:20 -0000
Ben, See inline. If you are ok with these changes, I will go ahead and submit an updated version of the draft. On Nov 25, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Further trimming it to sections that require a response. > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> >>>> >>>> *** Minor issues *** : >>>> >>>> -- section 2.2, last paragraph: >>>> >>>> The IKE mention lacks context. Do you mean to suggest IKE with IPSec? I assume so, but there's been no mention of IPSec so far. >>> >>> No. It implies the use of IKEv2 protocol for performing mutual authentication and establishing SA. There is no suggestion of using IKE with IPSec. >>> >>> How about this? >>> >>> For point-to-point key management IKEv2[RFC5996] protocol provides ... >> >> 5996 describes IKEv2 as a component of IPSec, and a key-management mechanism for ESP and AH SAs. Now, I won't claim to be an IKE expert by any extent, but I think that if you mean to use IKE _without_ IPSec it would be good to add a sentence or two pointing that out. Or is there some other reference that could be used that describes using IKEv2 for non-IPSec SAs? > > Added this sentence. > > Although IKEv2 is discussed as a component of IPsec, KMP can use just the mutual authentication and SA establishment portion of IKEv2. This statement has been further modified to: For point-to-point key management IKEv2 [RFC5996] provides for automated key exchange under a SA and can be used for a comprehensive Key Management Protocol (KMP) solution for routers. IKEv2 can be used for both IPsec SAs [RFC4301] and other types of SAs. For example, Fibre Channel SAs [RFC4595] are currently negotiated with IKEv2. Using IKEv2 to negotiate TCP-AO is a possible option. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> *** Nits/editorial comments ***: >>>> >>>> -- IDNits indicates some unused and obsoleted references. Please check. >>> >>> Found one unused reference and have removed it. >> >> Seems like there were more than one. From IDNits: >> >> == Missing Reference: 'IRR' is mentioned on line 92, but not defined >> >> == Unused Reference: 'RFC2409' is defined on line 585, but no explicit >> reference was found in the text >> >> == Unused Reference: 'RFC3547' is defined on line 588, but no explicit >> reference was found in the text >> >> ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925) >> >> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2409 >> (Obsoleted by RFC 4306) >> >> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3547 >> (Obsoleted by RFC 6407) > > I have removed these unused references. > >> >>>> >>>> -- section 4, 2nd paragraph: "In addition Improving TCP’s Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks." >>>> >>>> sentence fragment. >>> >>> Changed it to say: >>> >>> In addition, the recommendations in Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks >>> >> >> Am I correct in assuming this merges with the following sentence? Otherwise, it's still a fragment. >> > > Changed it to: > > In addition, the recommendations in RFC 5961 should also be followed ... Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com
- Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-tcp-… Ben Campbell
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-… Ben Campbell
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-routing-… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-kar… Ben Campbell