From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: "Waltermire, David A. (Fed)" <david.waltermire@nist.gov>,
 "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "'iesg@ietf.org'" <iesg@ietf.org>,
 "draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org"
 <draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Thread-Index: AdHxlZAf0viCeDMrR7KVHzNfcwAdaAAW8uLw
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 04:10:57 +0000
Message-ID: <97ae9a43544a4144aaddde0c476f73d5@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
References: <MWHPR09MB14407DC07A9F24514A49754AF01B0@MWHPR09MB1440.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR09MB14407DC07A9F24514A49754AF01B0@MWHPR09MB1440.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_mMOkyubXwNE73A-h4BpAXAMtTM>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Precedence: list

Thanks for the review. Please see inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Waltermire, David A. (Fed) [mailto:david.waltermire@nist.gov]
> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 10:26 PM
> To: secdir@ietf.org; 'iesg@ietf.org' <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-tram-tur=
n-
> mobility.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
>=20
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoi=
ng
> 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 ju=
st
> like any other last call comments.
>=20
> Summary: ready with nits.
>=20
> This standards track draft describes a mechanism for a Traversal Using Re=
lays
> around NAT (TURN) client to re-associate with a TURN server after the cli=
ents
> IP address and/or port changes allowing previous allocations to be kept. =
This
> helps to support IP address mobility in a way that is transparent and sea=
mless
> to remote peers.
>=20
> I found that the draft clearly articulates the problem it is trying to so=
lve. The
> security considerations seem to be appropriate for the draft.
>=20
> The following are minor nits and editorial issues with the draft that wou=
ld be
> good to address before progressing the draft:
>=20
> In section 1, second paragraph, STUN should be spelled out on its first u=
se=20

Updated.

> and
> an informative reference to RFC 7635 should be included.

Informative reference to RFC 7635 is already included in the draft.

>=20
> In section 2, there is an extra space s/[RFC5245] , and the/[RFC5245], an=
d
> the/. Similar issues exist throughout the document which also need to be
> fixed.

Thanks, fixed.

>=20
> The phase "TBD (Mobility Forbidden)" is used in section 3.1.4 and in othe=
r
> parts of the document as a placeholder for the 405 Mobility Forbidden STU=
N
> Error Code requested in the IANA considerations. While the actions to be
> taken by IANA are clear, the TBD placeholders should be filled in with wh=
at is
> expected to be assigned by IANA before the draft progresses.

Yes.

-Tiru

>=20
> Regards,
> Dave Waltermire