[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions-05

Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 26 August 2019 17:16 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, cdni@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <156683976148.30653.13816124126977906406@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:16:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/HVx3tg3Ygyy7Arzj_dcA_Zg0ulI>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions-05

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review result: Has Nits

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 terminology RR (Request Router) and CP (Content Provider) specified by the
Terminology are not used for the entire document. I assume that RR would be the
one request content, isn't? is RR same as Client?  Is RR part of Downstream CDN
Provider? is the CP same as Downstream CDN provider or Upstream CDN Provider?

who issued the Redirect Target?

It would be good for the document to clearly specify the relationship of all
the entities, such as who makes request and who respond, and who use the
Redirect Target capability, etc.

Thank you very much.
Linda Dunbar

[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-cd… Linda Dunbar via Datatracker
Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Ori Finkelman (IETF)