Re: [Int-dir] Int Area Directorate Review Assignment - draft-ietf-savi-mix-11

["Jun Bi" <[e-mail]>]

Many thanks for the review !

Please see the attached savi-mix-12, which is a minor revised version from -11 version, according to review comments.

Best Regards,

Jun Bi
 
From: CarlosJesús Bernardos Cano
Date: 2016-10-07 20:09
To: David Lamparter; int-dir
CC: draft-ietf-savi-mix
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Int Area Directorate Review Assignment - draft-ietf-savi-mix-11
Thanks a lot David for the review!
 
CCing authors of the draft so they can take into account your comments.
 
Kind regards,
 
Carlos
 
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 13:50 +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> [apologies for the delay, got some interference from a release
> cycle...]
> 
> Apart from some typos (which I think the RFC editors will fix?), my
> review is the following:
> 
> - the draft has no privacy consideration section.  It should have
> one,
>   pointing out the following:
> 
>   "When implementing multiple SAVI methods, privacy considerations of
>    all methods apply cumulatively.  In addition, there is a minor
>    additional loss of privacy in that the SAVI device can correlate
>    information from different SAVI methods."
> 
>   (optionally: "This additional loss of privacy is considered
>   miniscule.", though that's just my personal opinion.)
> 
> - in section 6.1.2.2., on "responding to the DAD message", it would
> be
>   useful to state that the DAD message should be discarded and not
>   forwarded.  (Forwarding it may cause other SAVI devices to send
>   additional defense NAs.)  I believe this is the intent, but it's
> not
>   quite obvious.  Maybe I'm also misunderstanding something there?
> 
> - also in section 6.1.2.2., a suggestion to ratelimit (or, in
> general,
>   apply precautions) defense NAs in order to reduce security threats
> is
>   probably a good idea.  The problem I see there is that it's newly
>   specified behaviour that just needs to be pointed out as requiring
> the
>   same approach as the individual SAVI methods.
> 
> - lastly, it could be pointed out that applying SAVI-MIX in an
>   inconsistent way can well break one's network.  Obvious case of
> user
>   stupidity, but well...
> 
> All in all I believe the draft is in good shape and should proceed
> with
> minor edits.
> 
> Hope this is useful,
> 
> -David
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
> wrote:
> > 
> > You are next up on the Int Area Directorate review assignment queue
> > and the Int ADs have requested a review of draft-ietf-savi-mix-
> > 11 (see 
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-savi-mix-11).
> [...]
> _______________________________________________
> Int-dir mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir