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

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <> Sun, 03 November 2013 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3F211E82DC; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:46:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z1qKa6VFyQrI; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDE9211E82D4; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E2CCD58D3; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 19:46:34 +0100 (CET)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 564BFCADC46; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 19:46:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <>
To: "Chris Lonvick (clonvick)" <>
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 19:46:30 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
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-
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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, 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,


> Best regards,
> Chris