Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-04

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Tue, 02 October 2012 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0AF21F8530; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.534, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 KsiSuzwipHzX; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04DC21F852E; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=830; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1349192569; x=1350402169; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=p9Z6ryZBTNtPHTPMsy6aCgeZlJWtURNgxIUpgZZwKBM=; b=GvohY0m8/nlTR9+0SDNinR2rXQjGlWXmgA+786vIVNIHq4DArO8hDMrt GmYNkpVgZ+7o0cTfOQJXUTCzgBxWCjFRzPi2xIvZ4DRAWDdIU4F+aLZUk 2AvcAvuvBbZlo/2llGIpd8o/C5wQ7WYV3n+44QmeGTsV7l94CRzEKmZIb I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,524,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="127547323"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2012 15:42:49 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q92FgkSJ007428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:42:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:42:47 -0500
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Klaas Wierenga <klaas@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-04
Thread-Index: AQHNnYBG687xghIGjUCnsyJs+ZhAHpemPuSA
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:42:46 +0000
Message-ID: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE994E70474@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3883FA36-0368-48FB-AF8E-C7D23865E76E@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824
x-originating-ip: [10.86.247.224]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19230.001
x-tm-as-result: No--33.267700-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <7E1C3B2746855A4F855A1037BAB3B0BD@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:06:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-fecframe-pseudo-cdp-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:42:58 -0000

Hi Klaas,

Thanks for the review.


>** the code below figure 5:
>        v=0
>        o=ali 1122334455 1122334466 IN IP4 fec.example.com
>        s=FEC Framework Examples
>        t=0 0
>	Š.
>
>comes out of thin air, is it supposed to be part of Figure 5 (in that
>case the caption is at the wrong position)? Some explanation/introduction
>is useful.

The SDP describes the example 5. I re-arranged the text and figures.

>
>*** 4.  Reconstruction of Source Flows from Repair Flow(s)
>*** 4.1.  Example: Multiple Source Flows Protected by a Single Repair Flow
>
>I think for consistency with 3 and 3.1 you should have text in 4

OK.

-acbegen

>
>*** Security considerations
>
>I agree with the author that no additional security implications are
>introduced
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Klaas