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

"Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp> Tue, 31 May 2016 10:14 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 E949712D70C; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:29 -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 f7Mt4RuzG-lx; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns2.nict.go.jp (ns2.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:232:300::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB6C12D707; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw2.nict.go.jp (gw2.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.251]) by ns2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id u4VAEQku026523; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:14:26 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (mail1.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.14]) by gw2.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id u4VAEQs3026520; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:14:26 +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 38FAC6C33; Tue, 31 May 2016 19:14:26 +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>
References: <009201d1bb24$1563e4e0$402baea0$@nict.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <009201d1bb24$1563e4e0$402baea0$@nict.go.jp>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 19:14:37 +0900
Message-ID: <009601d1bb25$3cb3dea0$b61b9be0$@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: AQIqTpcD9HVvR9EqZoraa3UouOrYpp8hrLkQ
Content-Language: ja
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at zenith2
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/RLZoGbxZ92scSafu_F4ilnZkLhA>
Subject: Re: [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 10:14:30 -0000

Hi again, let me correct the following part of my previous email.

> [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

[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

Thank you.
Take


> -----Original Message-----
> From: secdir [mailto:secdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Takeshi
> Takahashi
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 7:06 PM
> To: lars@netapp.com; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview