Re: [secdir] [sidr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06

Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> Tue, 27 February 2018 14:28 UTC

From: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
To: Di Ma <madi@zdns.cn>
CC: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sidr-slurm.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidr-slurm.all@ietf.org>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06
Thread-Index: AQHTr7wnUTKslLZqfEuSwcNPDeWDTqO4TsOw
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:28:17 +0000
Message-ID: <2DD56D786E600F45AC6BDE7DA4E8A8C118DDDB6B@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <151913883228.4660.15594261925083651299@ietfa.amsl.com> <5DC08C9A-C97E-4E8B-918B-A33E6D401FBD@zdns.cn>
In-Reply-To: <5DC08C9A-C97E-4E8B-918B-A33E6D401FBD@zdns.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/BDPrclNjSczZooGnznhDC_YrGps>
Subject: Re: [secdir] [sidr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06
Precedence: list

Hi Di, 

This addresses my concerns thanks!
Yours, 
Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Di Ma [mailto:madi@zdns.cn] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 6:14 AM
To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-sidr-slurm.all@ietf.org; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06

Daniel,

Thanks for your review.

Please see my responses in lines.


> 在 2018年2月20日，23:00，Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> 写道：
> 
> Reviewer: Daniel Migault
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> 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.
> 
> The summary of the review is Ready with nits:
> 
> •	section 1: Introduction
> 
>   However, an RPKI relying party may want to override some of the
>   information expressed via putative TAs and the certificates
> 
> <mglt>It seems that TA is being used for the first time here. The 
> acronym should be extended to ease the reading of the document. I am 
> reading it as Trust Anchor.</mglt>
> 

Yes. We will use Trust Anchor for its first use. 

> 
> •	section 2.  RPKI RPs with SLURM
> 
>   SLURM provides a simple way to enable RPs to establish a local,
> 
> <mglt>It seems to me the acronym RP is used for the first time. It 
> seems that it should be expanded to ease the reading of the document. 
> I am reading it as Relaying Party.</mglt>

Yes. We will use Relaying Party for its first use. 

> 
> 
> •	section 6 Security considerations
> 
> <mglt>I My reading is that the section catches the criticality of the 
> SLURM files and that network operators are already familiar 
> provisioning critical data. As such I believe the section is 
> sufficiently clear.</mglt>
> 
> •	whole document:
> 
> <mglt>It seems that BGPSec, and BGPsec are used together. I believe 
> this should be harmonized to BGPsec.</mglt>

We will use BGPsec throughout this document as used by RFC 8205. 

Di

[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-si… Daniel Migault
Re: [secdir] [sidr] Secdir last call review of dr… Di Ma
Re: [secdir] [sidr] Secdir last call review of dr… Daniel Migault