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

"Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp> Mon, 20 June 2016 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
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 673C012D0EF; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.627
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3c5LU81jeVM; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.nict.go.jp (ns1.nict.go.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:232:300::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BEB12B05C; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw1.nict.go.jp (gw1.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.250]) by ns1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id u5KCoGQR041050; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:50:16 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail1.nict.go.jp (mail1.nict.go.jp [133.243.18.14]) by gw1.nict.go.jp with ESMTP id u5KCoGpo040929; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:50:16 +0900 (JST)
Received: from VAIO (unknown [133.243.30.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail1.nict.go.jp (NICT Mail Spool Server1) with ESMTPS id 992C26197; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:50:15 +0900 (JST)
From: "Takeshi Takahashi" <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
To: "'Eggert, Lars'" <lars@netapp.com>
References: <009201d1bb24$1563e4e0$402baea0$@nict.go.jp> <73CCA28B-9857-46E0-A338-A19F2EE4EEDB@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <73CCA28B-9857-46E0-A338-A19F2EE4EEDB@netapp.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:50:32 +0900
Message-ID: <001601d1caf2$54b61310$fe223930$@nict.go.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIqTpcD9HVvR9EqZoraa3UouOrYpgHy36zmnzGqVrA=
Content-Language: ja
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at zenith1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/nAWP70G8rmdrxmzGUILCDP2aJjw>
Cc: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis.all@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:50:20 -0000

Hi,

> > 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.
> 
> No typos come up when using "idnits --spellcheck". I also don't quite
> understand what you mean by "missing parentheses around referenced section
> numbers" - could you please clarify?

These typos are very trivial, but let me list them here.
Since I'm not a native speaker (writer) of English, so I might be wrong, but
I hope you could take a look at them.
I was reading version 13 of the draft, and version 14 (that was published a
couple of days ago) already have fixed most of the typo I found.

1. in Section 3.1.7,

Old) "requires for"
New) "required for" (already fixed in version 14)

2. in Section 3.1.7,

Old) "... by the UDP congestion control method Section 3.1 that is not less
than the reaction of TCP..."

It could be helpful if you could use parentheses, e.g., "...control method
(see Section 3.1) that..." or "...control method described in Section 3.1)
that..."

3. in Section 3.1.8

Old) "across multiple networks the between ..."
New) "across multiple networks between ..." (already fixed in version 14)

4. in Section 3.1.9

Old) "into unprovisioned Internet paths (e.g., [RFC7510]) To protect"

The sentence might need a period in between; i.e., "into unprovisioned
Internet paths (e.g., [RFC7510]). To protect"

5. in Section 7

Old) "for tunnels carrying IP Traffic,"

It could be a non-capital letter; i.e., "for tunnels carrying IP traffic,"

I like the summary table inserted in Section 7.
Thank you for preparing the summary table.

Kind regards,
Take



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eggert, Lars [mailto:lars@netapp.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 9:39 PM
> To: Takeshi Takahashi
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis.all@ietf.org; tsvwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-13
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the review! I'll incorporate respective changes into -14.
> 
> On 2016-05-31, at 12:06, Takeshi Takahashi <takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> You were right that what we had was wrong (copy/paste bug, I think), but
> they pointers should be to Sections 5.1.2 and 6, respectively.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> No typos come up when using "idnits --spellcheck". I also don't quite
> understand what you mean by "missing parentheses around referenced section
> numbers" - could you please clarify?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lars