Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13

Take-san,

Many thanks for this review - we'll re-check Table 1 and make any necessary corrections.

Thanks, --David (as draft shepherd)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Takeshi Takahashi [mailto:takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:15 AM
> To: lars@netapp.com; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tsvwg-
> rfc5405bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
> 
> Hi again, let me correct the following part of my previous email.
> 
> > [New]
> > "SHOULD avoid using multiple ports"  corresponds to Section 5.1.1
> >
> > and
> >
> > "SHOULD use a randomized source port or equivalent technique" corresponds
> to Section 5.1.2
> 
> [New]
> "SHOULD avoid using multiple ports"  corresponds to Section 5.1.1
> 
> and
> 
> "SHOULD use a randomized source port or equivalent technique" corresponds to
> Section 5.1
> 
> Thank you.
> Take
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: secdir [mailto:secdir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Takeshi
> > Takahashi
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 7:06 PM
> > To: lars@netapp.com; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > [General summary]
> >
> > This document is ready.
> >
> > [Topic of this draft]
> >
> > This draft talks about the UDP Usage Guidelines and replaces RFC 5405
> (BCP).
> > It talks about how to use UDP, especially it pays attention to the fair
> > use
> > of the network resourced and talks a lot on congestion control.
> >
> > The RFC 5045 focuses on unicast case, but this bis document talks about
> > multicast, (anycast, broadcast, )and IP tunneling cases.
> >
> > The content is useful, and I hope to see this draft to be published as an
> > RFC.
> >
> > [Clarification question]
> >
> > In Table 1 "Summary of recommendations", I wonder if the corresponding
> > section numbers are correct.
> >
> > [Now]
> > "SHOULD avoid using multiple ports"  corresponds to Section 5.1
> > and
> > "SHOULD use a randomized source port or equivalent technique" corresponds
> > to
> > Section 5.2
> >
> > [New]
> > "SHOULD avoid using multiple ports"  corresponds to Section 5.1.1
> > and
> > "SHOULD use a randomized source port or equivalent technique" corresponds
> > to
> > Section 5.1.2
> >
> > I might be wrong, so please check.
> >
> > Also I have seen several typos (especially, missing parentheses around
> > referenced section numbers) on this document, so please revise the texts
> > before the publication of this document.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > Take
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > secdir mailing list
> > secdir@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> > wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview