Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-16

[Tengfei Chang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald, 

Thanks for your review on the MSF! It's never late. 
I have resolved your comments according to the suggestion and created a new version on my local. 

One question, should I publish the new version right away or I should wait for more comments? 
Thanks! 

Tengfei 

Stay Healthy! Stay Optimistic! 

Dr. Tengfei Chang 
Post-doctoral Researcher 
Wireless Networking for Evolving & Adaptive Applications (EVA) 
National Inst. for Research in Comp. Sci. and Automation ( Inria ) 
([phone] 
[e-mail] 
www.tchang.org 
____________________ 

> From: "Donald Eastlake" <[e-mail]>
> To: "iesg" <[e-mail]>, "secdir" <[e-mail]>, "draft-ietf-6tisch-msf
> all" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 11:48:24 PM
> Subject: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-16

> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document
> editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other comments.
> Sorry this review is so late.

> The summary of the review is Ready with a minor issue.

> Security:

> I have no objection to anything in the Security Considerations section. However,
> I find it odd that this section does not mention confidentiality or
> authentication at all. I think it needs a few words added. Perhaps, in the
> first paragraph of the Security Considerations section, the following change,
> assuming it is correct:
> " The security considrations of the specifications continue to apply in the MSF
> scope." -> "Confidentiality and authentication of MSF control and data traffic
> is provided by these specifications whose security considerations continue to
> apply to MSF."

> Nits:

> Section 2, top of page 5: garble. ",wh ile" -> ", while".

> Section 3, page 6:

>    * "the AutoTxCell and AutoRxCell are collided" -> "the AutoTxCell and AutoRxCell
>     collide"
>     * "In case in a backs-off period" -> "When in a back-off period"
>    * "autonomous cells take precedence over negotiated cell" -> "autonomous cells
>     take precedence over negotiated cells"
>     * "possible for negotiated cell" -> "possible for a negotiated cell"

> Section 5, page 9: "Without specific declaring, all cells" -> "Without specific
> declaration, all cells" or just "All cells"

> Section 5.1, page 9: ", most cases" -> ", in most cases"
> Section 5.2, top of page 11:

>     * "For burst traffic type" -> "For bursty traffic"
>    * " It is recommended to set MAX_NUM_CELLS value at least 4x of the maximum
>    number of used cells in a slot frame in recent history." - > "Setting
>    MAC_NUM_CELLS to a value at least 4x the recent maximum number of cells used in
>     a slot frame is RECOMMENDED."
> There are references to outdated drafts. I usually just omit the version number
> in my drafts that reference other drafts eliminating this.

> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [phone] (cell)
> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
> [ mailto:[e-mail] | [e-mail] ]