[secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04

Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com> Tue, 16 March 2010 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <tena@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 729F03A6832; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 WcEPSV0lkzeS; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0053A67FF; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KZC00CSLS4N9Q@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:26:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KZC005BGS4NDV@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:26:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z00147053k ([10.70.39.148]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KZC00COQS4NLJ@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:26:47 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:26:47 +0800
From: Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Message-id: <9A90D3D3722C4A04879B3B6C57ECF65C@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BE05E0C897@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com>
Subject: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-04
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: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:26:54 -0000

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.

A nit: in the first paragraph of section 2, the second sentence is outdated 
and should be deleted.



In paragraph 3 of section 4.2, given that there is no change to the 
TWAMP-test packet format, I assume we use the exact TWAMP-test packet format 
as defined RFC5357, so that the SID is not carried in the test packets. My 
question is that how the reflector just whether a TWAMP-test packet belongs 
to the same session/SID or not. Since per definition the testing message 
does not include SID, how to differentiate the testing message of different 
testing sessions after multiple testing started?

This is not obvious and the text should be improved to make it clear how 
this works.


B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html