Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05.txt

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Sun, 03 November 2013 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 DD3F211E82DC; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:46:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z1qKa6VFyQrI; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE9211E82D4; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E2CCD58D3; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 19:46:34 +0100 (CET)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [10.122.115.223] (unknown [207.230.251.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp01.uc3m.es) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 564BFCADC46; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 19:46:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1383504390.3964.10.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: "Chris Lonvick (clonvick)" <clonvick@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 19:46:30 +0100
In-Reply-To: <9BB92CB59918E1418A06FD4E3269FABE2AB21319@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
References: <9BB92CB59918E1418A06FD4E3269FABE2AB21319@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5-2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.0.0.1014-20266.001
Cc: "draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 18:46:45 -0000

Dear Chris,

thanks for your review. Some comments inline below...

On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 03:32 +0000, Chris Lonvick (clonvick) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
> IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
> security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
> these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> Overall, I found the document to be understandable and I believe that all of the security concerns have been documented.
> 
> I did find some editorial nits that you may want to address.
> 
> In Section 2, the phrase "Along this document..." is used.  It would be better to use something like, "In this document...".

[Authors] Thanks, we'll change it.

> 
> In Section 4.3.1.2, the phrase "which is be responsible of managing this counter." is used.  I think it would be better to use "which is responsible for managing this counter.".

[Authors] Thanks, we'll fix it in -06.

> 
> The first sentence in Section 9 is, "This document defines the new following elements which values to be allocated by IANA:"  I think it would be better to say "This document establishes new assignments to the IANA mobility parameters registry."

[Authors] OK, we'll change that in -06.


Thanks again,

Carlos

> 
> Best regards,
> Chris