Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-04

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sun, 12 March 2017 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
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 E84891293D6; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 KExavq3Z8k74; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22c.google.com (mail-ot0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E5CF128B38; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id o24so101895408otb.1; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fm1m5fpFgs9HzjJuHUCMK5F2QntATXtqIJPsUOcuUaw=; b=XDQt4nbYlcBMi8qxNYSFba8MMHxlsm+QCqBkpbTeFDcrTpxaBSZhx8gyLDew+Uqejl gGZirrF2h84OqEtDFk7S6W6nVvfOGOKZA87G1K7oG/RhROhL1dboerZYW/ddcHBHIuc2 E+9L9ed2TkxBTeC7R32HHCRzhx3IR7dbsJPcVAhSiPefFevNRIel6ADA/AG8EwA+124t BmZ/6XRpyN7gFIqWorJCgv48p+QFsWQk84tFV4X+P2aBz9kIlOa9wImNOPdE3NA3oJM8 PmxrwSuczlMpibBVE+WbzXOiOP0HsgKLCjyzmhHE/Wvaj9RLOVcr3+Pg3cAMMT/ZuhTi OVkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fm1m5fpFgs9HzjJuHUCMK5F2QntATXtqIJPsUOcuUaw=; b=bnPSQcz2asUcWncah/WQ6E9lnzxPrtY9gm0a+9AZiRlpJx9ADejnC5nTb2u45Rim0x JPW1hAr1Zs9WJfZsi17UiWnY6fnAB755JYbwiT8+jsjjitzacKM5bPWzboncw5XrZxBu 6Cobm7fDl/RCmeWeXEeDyCppz3y4VrtTrrIZqs6wUhcNWt8+VDisbcvmHDkclQNyQ2ce hTlxjcx1KOY+4zYTxXWRlzK+dU1s6emjTE3zr9JSkVot+jbTZEYehetUOJ9jgEKWhAu1 eHM3TlVH5Uutj1ylc/AP8n7f3HXxSIPjj3lmjooDRionuWwOJwxLtSorMq0+Qzk+XWZh AsQA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k8i8s/SEhDThW+5b7sYiF2yjkoIktJSwF6mxQI06pqvKs0SQznc2+sHzlgZJwXRWHxDRwHOQZBUGddBA==
X-Received: by 10.157.82.22 with SMTP id e22mr17695164oth.76.1489347076900; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.21.21 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <58C4B625.4000102@gmail.com>
References: <58C4B625.4000102@gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:31:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmUMpod7Ln37=gYa1mrMA7s+zO9AroCJoie3D33kephrjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403043546d8774d2c054a8da345
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/wRWxX-3h9W4nDrO53u-mOcuaEno>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format.all@ietf.org, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-04
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: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:31:19 -0000

Hi Chris,
the most sincere thanks for the review and comments you've shared. I've
applied both changes and posted as -05 version already.

Best regards,
Greg

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> The document is ready with minor nits. The document calls for the change
> of designation of a field in an established protocol. This is called out
> throughout Section 2 and will need to be ratified by the IANA in Section 3.
> The previous documents set the bit to MUST BE ZERO and this document uses
> it to signal an option to use either the NTP timestamp (still using 0) or a
> more recently adopted 1588 timestamp (1). The Security Considerations
> section appropriately names the prior documents and references their
> Security Considerations sections.
>
> Minor nits:
>
> The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1 is:
> "And of mentioned solutions will be subject to additional queuing delays
> that negatively affect data plane clock accuracy."
> Perhaps should be "Any of the mentioned..."
>
> The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2 is:
> "In these procedures, the Modes field been used to identify and select
> specific communication capabilities."
> Perhaps should be "...has been used..."
>
> I didn't do a thorough read through the document so there may be other
> minor nits.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>