[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-17

Mohit Sethi via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 25 May 2024 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B322C14F6E3; Sat, 25 May 2024 05:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mohit Sethi via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171664075335.49629.10642285949071688395@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 05:39:13 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: MNVBEXTKKHJR4WIVXNIOXR257ACKCTO3
X-Message-ID-Hash: MNVBEXTKKHJR4WIVXNIOXR257ACKCTO3
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-secdir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, mops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Mohit Sethi <mohit@iki.fi>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-17
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/QNg0JBuKOGfiNLDPnnvjYR2IcEo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:secdir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:secdir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:secdir-leave@ietf.org>

Reviewer: Mohit Sethi
Review result: Ready

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 describes an exemplary XR application and its network
requirements. Using the example, the draft provides network operators with
information about network characteristics such as response time and bandwidth
that their networks must support to make such XR applications a reality. The
security considerations of the use case described are similar to any other
streaming application.

Some nits
* The draft uses a mix of capitalization: "Edge Computing", "edge computing",
and "Edge computing". Similarly, it uses "Edge devices" and "Edge Devices".
Some more uniformity would be beneficial.

* The draft uses both milliseconds and milli-seconds.

* The paragraph on long-range and self-similar traffic was slightly hard to
comprehend. I am not sure I have still fully understood it.