Hi Vincent,
Thanks a lot for your review. Please see inline below for my comments.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:57 PM Vincent Roca via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Vincent Roca
Review result: Has Nits
Hello,
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.
Summary: Has Nits
Thank you for the clarification of the Security Considerations section.
I just have a minor comment and a typo.
- It is said (section 6):
"The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit
this amplification risk."
I agree, but where do you intend to apply pacing? In the incoming queue (i.e.,
by delaying some PBU/PBA messages) or in the outgoing queue (i.e., to limit
output traffic), or both? It's a bit unclear.
[CB] I meant limiting the output traffic. I've clarified this in version -06 (to be submitted soon).
- Typo: remove one "exist" in sentence: "there may exist multiple previous
(e.g., k) MAARs exist."
[CB] Fixed, thanks.
Thanks again for your comments.
Carlos
Regards, Vincent
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
