Re: draft-noisternig-ipdvb-sec-ext-00.txt (Editorial NiTs)

Gorry Fairhurst <> Sun, 05 July 2009 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031B73A69C8 for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 01:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-31yrU-9h8F for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 01:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841703A69B5 for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 01:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n65828tf010664 for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:02:08 +0100 (BST)
Received: (from majordomo.lists@localhost) by (8.13.4/8.12.2/Submit) id n65828Dk010663 for ipdvb-subscribed-users; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:02:08 +0100 (BST)
X-Authentication-Warning: majordomo.lists set sender to using -f
Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-Laptop-6.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n6581bIS010643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:01:38 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:01:37 +0100
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
Organization: The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC:,,, Prashant Pillai <>
Subject: Re: draft-noisternig-ipdvb-sec-ext-00.txt (Editorial NiTs)
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
Precedence: bulk

Authors, I dent some comments and questions on the draft in a previous 
email. This email contains a few minor comments on editorial issues, 
that may improve the next version of this draft.

Best wishes,


/Another feature provided is called identity protection./
- This reads oddly, I suggest something like:
/The method also provides identity protection./
/processing continues as usually/
- this should be /continues with the usual processing/, although it 
would be better to also cite a reference to indicate what this is.

/On securing the ULE SNDUs, security is provided at the link layer as
    opposed to existing higher-layer mechanisms like IPsec [8] or TLS
    [11]. This allows them to be used in/
- This reads oddly. Is it possible to say something like:
/This document provides security for ULE SNDUs at the link layer, iin 
contrast to higher-layer mechanisms, such as IPsec [8] or TLS
[11]. This design allows higher-layer mechanisms to be used in/
/The security extension may use and benefit f/
- This isn't quite so, you would would need to update these mechanisms, 
a forward reference to the appropriate section where this is discussed.
/The ULE security extension is designed to cope with both bi-
    directional and unidirectional links, as well as unicast and
    multicast settings./
- Could you replace /to cope with/ by /for/
- This would be a good place to identify the framework [RFC 4259]
Please add abbreviations:
/Some of the main security services
    (mandatory or optional) that the security extension for ULE aims to
    provide are:/
- delete /aims to provide/? and say /provides/?
/even if it got hold of the transmitted data./
- Can you rephrase in more formal English?
/arguably the most important step on providing/
- Is it possible to say something like:
/an important step in providing/
/While one
       solution for this is to use temporary addresses....
- is this text needed? (see other comments).
Page 6:
/digital signatures, may be used in order to assure source/
- I misread this. I don't think this talks about ordering, and so it 
would be better in this case to remove /in order/.
/ will not be able to derive a correct one./
- True, it will be statistically hard, bit not impossible.
Page 7:
/received data is recent/
- could this be better phrased?
Page 8:
/After the ULE base header, the security extension header follows./
- May be better as:
/The security extension header follows the ULE base header./
Page 11:
/ In order to support
    shared SAs permitting bi-directional communication, an SAD should/
- May be better as:
/ To support shared SAs for bi-directional communication, an SAD should/
/ Each set of Security Parameters contains information about:/
- May be better as:
/ Each set of Security Parameters contains:/
/no security services at all,/
- delete /at all/?
/Note that we do not describe/
- better, perhaps as:
/This document does not describe/
/, as this is regarded implementation specific details./
- better, perhaps as:
/. This is regarded as implementation-specific detail./
Section 7.3:
/ Such protocol should/
- insert /a/.
/Link-level security is commonly used in broadcast/radio links to
    supplement end-to-end security, and may not be treated as a
- A substitute for what?
/A device may receive data from different MPEG-2
    multiplexes, which both may allocate PID values independently./
- cite reference to another RFC?


Some references are uncited, e.g. [5].

It may be helpful to consider citing [10] and [4] as informational 
background to issues they consider. These are already published and 
citing them where appropriate would help the reader understand issues 
that have already been discussed.


The following word appears in several place: /Illegitimate/ This has 
some additional meanings that are not intended here - could you replace 
by unauthoried or unintended or something similar?