IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 22 February 2012 06:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 5DB3321E8067 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:59:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fcYSMhWYH3qi for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29FB21E8040 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6FCCA32449F; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:59:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.31]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 557B84C015; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:59:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.12]) by PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.31]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:59:45 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:59:44 +0100
Thread-Topic: SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
Thread-Index: AQHM8LYw0IRIEsAc3UiAv56rwcxZfpZIfK2Q
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35D88A13AB8@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C2D1D06@szxeml526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <E5F4DC211930DB488C0563E1C93FB748169F7765@dfweml504-mbx> <688B3A69-603E-40A5-86FD-74F27250FD26@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <688B3A69-603E-40A5-86FD-74F27250FD26@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.2.22.55416
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:28:48 -0800
Cc: "draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:59:47 -0000

Hi Tina,

Thank you for your review and for the suggestion.

Cheers,
Med 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Tina TSOU [mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com] 
> Envoyé : mardi 21 février 2012 17:31
> À : secdir@ietf.org
> Cc : draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis@tools.ietf.org
> Objet : SECDIR Review of draft-ietf-behave-64-analysis-05
> 
> I don't see any security concerns as we don't define any new protocol.
> I have a small suggestion though:
> The Abstract of the draft somehow doesn't truly reflect the 
> actual description of the draft. This draft analyzes how NAT 
> 64 confirms to RFC 4966, which problems mentioned in 4966 are 
> solved, which are not solved etc. Whereas the abstract 
> mentions "This document evaluate how the new stateful 
> translation mechanisms avoid the problems that caused the 
> IETF to deprecate NAT-PT." I think we can be more specific here.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email