[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-08

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Thu, 10 July 2014 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983651B279C; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 1lcEe4QYU2d9; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57CFD1B2797; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id b8so5615584lan.26 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=A1rYxhZuOjGoUM63GmOlGYo2iXhof+hazkiTuvKiKMc=; b=Zk8a+YUHIHIM+zO7cktO2xtk/Gq1MN5RIE8/dLaQYjZkT+8CgeaLJsCjmzDmBPpHOC fuhozARd73onWqqZ39kswxLM0iL0OTsMItIQgh8ZBtKDhCwozlYjw7DYpIcVAw6SdtpO 4yLDqp6MlmbYVvv5s67/VElP27Ugqi6O3VKhkTEJLfHMZRD91NZO1LHtluIGZXAdXI+e rHkGabXUD7sG6f5FApFRpTBLRv6HWrmCAicKJZ/OWTd7FKD4UhqmWBJfbwfBuz6NSaVK J94xWRVXfs0gdm05FnoH3Orl3dqLQxFy+fEM4UcZIRgeOKBHGv8rkrkQ4BGeKOl39BLp G0Mg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.142.33 with SMTP id rt1mr1721189lbb.45.1404970941636; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.50.49 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:42:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFOuuo5SF5KVcuhktV7qCq3nZ9HtC-mMmexJwEkmz+i6b=fzXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c36b72e565a004fdd049bb
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Htae4R8tf4rjNMsnk3NGldvA228
Cc: draft-ietf-ppsp-survey.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 05:42:25 -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.



This document minimally documents and functionally compares eight different
deployed peer-to-peer streaming applications targeting video distribution.
The security considerations section describes how the various protocols are
secured and compares the security guarantees.


I applaud the publication of such documents, since it allows someone new to
the field to quickly get a feel for how the protocols compare and it
includes in references where to get detailed information about each one.

I think it is even very useful for people who are not new to the field,
since it is easy to miss the broader conceptual comparison of various
protocols when getting lost in the weeds of the bits and bytes details. It
is also great to see comparisons. It would be good if there were more such
“survey documents” available in different areas. The document is well
written and – assuming it is accurate (I have no way of knowing) makes a
real contribution to this space.

Radia