Hi Roman, Thanks a lot for your review. Please see inline below my comments.
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:51 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Mirja Kühlewind's and Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS position. > [CB] I've addressed all their points, hopefully in a way satisfactory to them. > ** Section 6. Per “The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit this > amplification risk”, could you address Vincent Roca’s SECDIR Review (thank > you!) question “should that pacing be on the 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?” > [CB] Done. > > ** Section 6. To provide normative language: > s/This requires security associations to exist between the involved MAARs/ > Hence, security associations are REQUIRED to exist between the involved > MAARs/ > [CB] Fixed, thanks. > > Editorial Nit: > ** Section 6. s/there may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs exist/ > there > may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs/ > > [CB] Fixed, thanks. Thanks a lot for your review! Carlos
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
