[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13

"Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp> Tue, 31 May 2016 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
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 AEFFE12D6C6; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.627
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qYccm9I91bUF; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.nict.go.jp (ns1.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:232:300::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B6512D183; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw1.nict.go.jp (gw1.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.250]) by ns1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id u4VA6Bhg014519; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:06:11 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (mail1.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.14]) by gw1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id u4VA6BiV014511; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:06:11 +0900 (JST)
Received: from VAIO (unknown [133.243.30.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail1.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail Spool Server1) with ESMTPS id B66256B95; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:06:10 +0900 (JST)
From: "Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
To: <lars@netapp.com>, <iesg@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis.all@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 19:06:22 +0900
Message-ID: <009201d1bb24$1563e4e0$402baea0$@nict.go.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdG7IyLdVBROrcWPQpmXcgE5pcjURQ==
Content-Language: ja
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at zenith1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/BdmY0z1P98UbBVf_obpS_qmvuzM>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 31 May 2016 10:06:15 -0000

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.

[General summary]

This document is ready.

[Topic of this draft]

This draft talks about the UDP Usage Guidelines and replaces RFC 5405 (BCP).
It talks about how to use UDP, especially it pays attention to the fair use
of the network resourced and talks a lot on congestion control.

The RFC 5045 focuses on unicast case, but this bis document talks about
multicast, (anycast, broadcast, )and IP tunneling cases.

The content is useful, and I hope to see this draft to be published as an
RFC.

[Clarification question]

In Table 1 "Summary of recommendations", I wonder if the corresponding
section numbers are correct.

[Now]
"SHOULD avoid using multiple ports"  corresponds to Section 5.1
and 
"SHOULD use a randomized source port or equivalent technique" corresponds to
Section 5.2

[New]
"SHOULD avoid using multiple ports"  corresponds to Section 5.1.1
and 
"SHOULD use a randomized source port or equivalent technique" corresponds to
Section 5.1.2

I might be wrong, so please check.

Also I have seen several typos (especially, missing parentheses around
referenced section numbers) on this document, so please revise the texts
before the publication of this document.

Thank you.
Take