Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10

Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> Fri, 31 December 2010 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <danli@huawei.com>
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 96A5D28C0E3; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:38:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.969
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 r9kxmdNVr1iA; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BC43A68EF; Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:38:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEA00C547YV6Y@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:40:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEA009GX7YUUJ@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:40:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from l00037133 ([10.70.77.125]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEA00I6L7YU98@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:40:06 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:40:06 +0800
From: Dan Li <danli@huawei.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Magnus_Nystr=F6m?= <magnusn@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Message-id: <012301cba8bd$f18212f0$7d4d460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <AANLkTi=R6Fg-GOak7ychV_O0_RGO75yjLcrurna5xsXp@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:46:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:38:12 -0000

Hi Magnus,

Thanks for your review!

Please see below.

Thanks,

Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Magnus Nyström" <magnusn@gmail.com>;
To: <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels@tools.ietf.org>;; <secdir@ietf.org>;; <iesg@ietf.org>;
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 10:02 AM
Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10


>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 document defines a new lambda (wavelength) label format for use
> in GMPLS signaling and routing.
> 
> I have no particular security concerns with this document.
> 
> A few editorial comments:
> 
> - General: The document seems to be in need of a proof-read; there are
> several examples where the wordings make the intent behind a sentence
> unclear - I cite some of them below.
> 
> - Section 2: "The Label_Set object is made by only one sub channel
> that must be same as the Upstream_Label object": Suggest changing to
> something like (if I did not misunderstand the intent with this
> sentence):  "The Label_set object shall contain a single sub-channel
> that must be the same as the Upstream_Label object"

[dan] Ok. You're right! I can use your proposed text.

> - Section 2, last paragraph is unclear and should preferably be
> re-written for clarity.
> - Section 3.1, third paragraph, unclear

[dan] You know English is not my native language. Any proposed text?

> - Sectoin 3.1, why state that n is a two's complement integer? Seems
> simpler to state it is just an integer? (it does make sense to state
> it in 3.2, however)
> 
[dan] The "n" is a signed integer. Here just want to make it more clear, we are using two's complement integer. In section 3.2 and 3.3, this statement is repeated.

> -- Magnus