Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-11.txt

[Charles Shen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald, thanks for reviewing, please see responses inline:


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> IESG.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> This draft provides SIP capabilities (a load control event package)
> for filtering calls with the intent of better handling overload
> conditions. As you might expect for an extension to an existing
> protocol, there are many references to existing SIP RFCs.
>
> The Security Considerations Section appears to be adequate. It
> references RFCs 6665 and other sections of the draft and seems to
> summarize relevant threats.
>
> Minor points:
>
> The introductions (Section 1) give examples of anticipatable and
> unanticipatable causes of overload. I find it curious that denial of
> service attacks are not listed as a possible cause of unanticipated
> overload.
>


Interestingly that thought occurred to me before. I think the ones we are
listing now is slightly different from DoS in the sense that they are more
real-people-calling overload vs. DoS where machine-made calling can be
common. Also DoS is usually seen as an attack, while those listed examples
seem all have legitimate causes. That said, I do think the network server
still observes the fact of overload during DoS, so I have no problem adding
it to the list.


>
> In Section 10, in answer to REQ 17, there is a reference to Section 10
> that, I believe, should be to Section 11.
>

Good catch!


>
> Editorial:
>
> Section 4 begins with what is said to be a list of requirements. And I
> think almost all of them are. But the first item is just not worded as
> a requirement. It says "... we focus ...". To be a requirement on the
> solution it should talk about the solution, not the authors. I think,
> it should be more like "For simplicity, the solution should focus on a
> method of controlling SIP load, rather than a generic application
> layer mechanism."
>
>
Done.



> Misc:
>
> The document contains lots of XML that I did not run through any
> formal syntax check.
>


I ran them through xmlvalidation.com.

thanks!

Charles




>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]
>