|
Sincere thanks to Peter for comments, please see responses below with
GVP1> Most comments are fixed. Only two require some clarifications.
Thanks
Prasad
From: Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 6:51 AM To: secdir@xxxxxxxx <secdir@xxxxxxxx> Cc: draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp.all@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>; pim@xxxxxxxx <pim@xxxxxxxx> Subject: [pim] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-07 Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Has Nits I lack sufficient knowledge of PIM and LISP to know if the security considerations specified in this update to RFC 8059 suffice. That said, based on my assumptions around the new security considerations, I believe the mitigations listed are pertinent to the new threats despite leaving the reader to discern how they are to effected. For the sake of the RFC Editor and other inexpert readers like me, I do offer the following nits for consideration: Page 2, section 1, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: it might be better to point at RFC 9300 for the definitions rather than RFC 6831. This is what was done on the very next page, so rather than confusing the reader, just point to one place. GVP1> Both RFC9300 and RFC6831 maybe needed. Can you please let us know if this is fine? Page 2, section 1, 3rd paragraph: insert “needs to” before “avoid” for easier reading. GVP1>
Thanks, added "needed to"
Page 3, section 2: delete “very”.
GVP1>
Fixed
Page 3, section 2.1, 1st sentence: change “a RLOC” to “an RLOC” matching usage
in some of the references. GVP1> Fixed
Please give a reference to such usage as “G-u”,
“G-u1”, etc. I could not easily find matching usage in RFC 8059 or RFC 9300. It may be that these are well understood in the community. GVP1> Inserted the word multicast to clarify this better. Page 3, section 2.1, 2nd sentence: bracket “e.g.” in commas. GVP1> Can you please clarify this ? I am not sure I understand what is asked for Page 4, section 3.1, 1st paragraph: drop “RFC8059”. You don’t need both the name and the reference. If using the name, separate “RFC” from the number, as is the RFC Editor’s preferred style. GVP1> Fixed Page 4, section 3.1, 2nd paragraph: drop “RFC 8059” (correctly formatted here!). GVP1> Fixed Page 5, 1st bullet item: delete a redundant “tree”. GVP1> Fixed Page 5, section 6, 3rd sentence: please provide a reference to what you consider to be suitable PIM authentication mechanisms. RFC 4601/RFC 5796? draft-ietf-pim-3376bis? Something else? GVP1> Fixed, added reference to RFC5796 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list -- pim@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to pim-leave@xxxxxxxx |
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
