[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05.txt

"Chris Lonvick (clonvick)" <clonvick@cisco.com> Sun, 03 November 2013 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <clonvick@cisco.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 73EA811E8180; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 20:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Wz+WCD6GZ7Zl; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 20:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFC311E817B; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 20:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1212; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383449534; x=1384659134; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=WtDjW5DfZhlmcCx8SeXdhOulGBcLerY4CW42+C6zTe8=; b=gim/zZocrtkWrzaY8VAjaxYb2ZtFB3yK7L/FQmhG9g+gqw7hX3KQwQ/u 2J9H2a27wVSFtLRV67lSbRcujv2QlpsNlPRgtzIkIpmgETsBH/IiKe50D R/ucu8Cysr1SRWEwE2N+4/Jj39SgfJ3iVK0k/NF/guigVFf+0wyDoGgYZ Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAA7DdVKtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgweBC79OgR0WdIInAQQ6UQEqFEImAQQBGod5vRmPJ4NYgQ4DqhODJoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,624,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="276947585"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2013 03:32:13 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA33WDFu003057 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 03:32:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.147]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 22:32:12 -0500
From: "Chris Lonvick (clonvick)" <clonvick@cisco.com>
To: "draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization.all@tools.ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05.txt
Thread-Index: Ac7YRCCJUSILibbkQouNb6tLR/Pk+Q==
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 03:32:11 +0000
Message-ID: <9BB92CB59918E1418A06FD4E3269FABE2AB21319@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.64.211]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05.txt
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 03:32:22 -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.

Overall, I found the document to be understandable and I believe that all of the security concerns have been documented.

I did find some editorial nits that you may want to address.

In Section 2, the phrase "Along this document..." is used.  It would be better to use something like, "In this document...".

In Section 4.3.1.2, the phrase "which is be responsible of managing this counter." is used.  I think it would be better to use "which is responsible for managing this counter.".

The first sentence in Section 9 is, "This document defines the new following elements which values to be allocated by IANA:"  I think it would be better to say "This document establishes new assignments to the IANA mobility parameters registry."

Best regards,
Chris