Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-cdni-logging.15

["Klaas Wierenga (kwiereng)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daryl,

Apologies for my late reply, I completed missed your e-mail and Francois’ reply propelled it back to the top of my inbox.


>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Detailed comments:
>>> 
>>> * Introduction and Figure 1: What is not clear to me from the text is
>>> whether there is any functional difference between an uCDN and an
>>> dCDN,or that they just happen to be in a hierarchical relation to each
>>> other.  I could also find no reference to that in RFC7336. The fact that
>>> in Figure 1 dCDN-2 is not also labeled as uCDN-2 led me to believe that
>>> there is a functional difference. However from the text it appears that
>>> any two DCNs can be in an u-d relation to each other. Please clarify.
> 
> In Figure 1 of RFC 7336, you will notice the interfaces are indicated as
> bi-directional.  I believe the spirit of this is to provide a hierarchal
> perspective.  In any case, can you please clarify your ³security² related
> concerns relative to this scenario?  So far, you have only indicated a
> question of whether a downstream CDN can also be an upstream CDN.  What is
> your related security question if the function changes relative to
> exchanges via the logging interfaces?  If this is a terminology question,
> I think it should have been addressed with regards to 7336.
> 
> To be clear, I¹m just asking for more clarity for the authors to properly
> address this question.

On my side there was no security related concern to it. I was just reading through the text and was unclear on this. To me there was a difference in what the text suggested and what the figure looked like, if that is clarified I am happy ;-)

Klaas