Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Wed, 20 January 2016 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.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 C03251A9121; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:04:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_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 WzISw9FjIGJa; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732271A8AEB; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-255-15.research.att.com [135.207.255.15]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98A412057F; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:05:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE4BE0118; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:00:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:03:26 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:03:24 -0500
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05
Thread-Index: AdFTodKWmjZaTNGiT5GxbyHbet1buQAAU8Ng
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D2E26B7CF97@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <D2C14B51.498EA%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <CAKKJt-fYhzcPApFsgZMMEO=aWeN00bAmKG9hpP87-ErjhW0Dzg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-fYhzcPApFsgZMMEO=aWeN00bAmKG9hpP87-ErjhW0Dzg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D2E26B7CF97NJFPSRVEXG0re_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Xr5czTFa0HgLa4Gofx_fVV8quN4>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05
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: <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: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:04:47 -0000

Hi Carl, thanks for your review.

Carl and Spencer,

I think the issue is that “PDM” appears in the
(ASCII Art) Figure in section 4.1,
without explaining what PDM is (that happens in 4.2).
The alternative is to expand a bit on PDM in the explanation
of the Figure in 4.1.  This way we can leave all the
methods together following the 4.1 Graphical Representation
section (with the ASCII art).

   4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#section-4>.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#page-8>
     4.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#section-4.1>.  Graphical Representation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#page-8>
     4.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#section-4.2>.  Discussion of PDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#page-10>
     4.3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#section-4.3>.  Discussion of "Coloring" Method . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#page-11>
     4.4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#section-4.4>.  Brief Discussion of OAM Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05#page-11>

Ok?
Al


From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 11:44 AM
To: Carl Wallace
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive.all@tools.ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05

Hi, Carl,

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com<mailto:carl@redhoundsoftware.com>> 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.
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 draft aims to provide clear definitions for Active and Passive
performance assessment as well as defining Hybrid methods and establishing
means of evaluating new methods as they emerge. The document relies
heavily on textual references to other specifications, which can at times
be a bit tedious for the reader but I have no particular suggestions
regarding this point and it's probably fine for a document that is aiming
to corral various earlier concepts. The referenced security and privacy
considerations were very good (if nearly as long as this spec itself). One
minor point, section 4.2 might be better placed before the current section
4.1 to better set-up the ASCII art in section 4.1.

Thanks for the review!

Could the authors let me know if the 4.1/4.2 section switch should happen? No need to submit a revision about that until after the telechat tomorrow, if the answer is "yes".

Spencer