[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-06.txt
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 14 June 2010 12:28 UTC
Return-Path: <secdir-bounces@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25443A6905 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.808
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.191, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mo07nWxKJk7N for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (PCH.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7DF3A68ED for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pch.mit.edu (pch.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o5ECSCU5022777 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:28:12 -0400
Received: from mailhub-dmz-1.mit.edu (MAILHUB-DMZ-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.21.41]) by pch.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o5ECS9kw022764 for <secdir@PCH.mit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:28:10 -0400
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-4.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.15]) by mailhub-dmz-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id o5ECS91D002417 for <secdir@mit.edu>; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:28:09 -0400
X-AuditID: 1209190f-b7b20ae000003f85-c4-4c16205881ba
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id AA.CD.16261.850261C4; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493F6C0042; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:28:08 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id izSoo7du8WnO; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:28:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D7FC000D; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:28:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 596B3130AE64; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:27:58 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:27:58 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@mit.edu, draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <20100614122758.GA31894@elstar.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-BeenThere: secdir@mit.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
Errors-To: secdir-bounces@mit.edu
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-06.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:28:09 -0000
Hi, 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. The document (intended status informational) contains a problem statement for implementing IKE/IPsec on clusters. The security considerations section seems adequate and I have no other technical remarks. Editorial nits: - p4: The text says: "High Availability" is a condition of a system [...] Would 'property' not be a better term here instead of 'condition'? - p4: s/depends on application/depends on the application/ - p4: The text says: "Fault Tolerance" is a condition [...] Would 'property' not be a better term here instead of 'condition'? - p4: s/the the/the/ - p4: s/where a one/where one/ - p4: s/hapens/happens/ - p7: s/issue, is/issue is/ - p8: s/doomed. the/doomed. The/ - p10: s/solution, is/solution is/ - Some RFC references use the RFC number as in [RFC4301] while others use a label such as [REDIRECT]. I suggest to pick one style. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ secdir mailing list secdir@mit.edu https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/secdir
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipseā¦ Juergen Schoenwaelder