Hi Carlos, OK with me as long as everyone that is familiar with the field understand why this change does not introduce new security risks.
Thanks --Avshalom From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]> To: Avshalom Houri/Haifa/i...@ibmil Cc: "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <[email protected]>, "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>, "Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)" <[email protected]>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <[email protected]> Date: 06/07/2009 06:07 PM Subject: RE: Gen Art review of draft-ietf-softwire-lb-03 Hi Avshalom, I think that the phrase you added (copied from the email body) is well understood form the first new sentence for someone implementing this. I mean, the text: ?Since this document defines a very incremental addition of a sub-TLV, ? Is implied (and sounds repetitive) from: ?This document defines a new sub-TLV for the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute.? So instead of us qualifying the addition with ?very incremental?, it is less ambiguous to quantify it with ?a new sub-TLV for the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute?. IOH, the first sentence re-summarizes the extent of the change for the context of the Security paragraph. Does this make sense? Thanks, -- Carlos. From: Avshalom Houri [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:58 AM To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) Cc: Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil); General Area Review Team; Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat); Ralph Droms (rdroms) Subject: Re: Gen Art review of draft-ietf-softwire-lb-03 Maybe like this? 4. Security Considerations + This document defines a new sub-TLV for the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation + Attribute. Security considerations for the BGP Encapsulation SAFI + and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute are covered in [RFC5512]. + Since this document defines a very incremental addition of a + sub-TLV, there are no additional security risks introduced by this design. Thanks --Avshalom From: Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> To: Avshalom Houri/Haifa/i...@ibmil Cc: [email protected], [email protected], General Area Review Team <[email protected]>, [email protected] Date: 06/07/2009 05:43 PM Subject: Re: Gen Art review of draft-ietf-softwire-lb-03 Avshalom, Thank you for your review. As you identified, it would be useful to cite the applicable security considerations that are documented and inherited. I think that the following change would address your concerns. This document defines a very incremental addition of a sub-TLV, it would seem that further elaboration would be redundant: 4. Security Considerations + This document defines a new sub-TLV for the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation + Attribute. Security considerations for the BGP Encapsulation SAFI + and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute are covered in [RFC5512]. There are no additional security risks introduced by this design. Please let us know if this addresses your concerns. Thanks, -- Carlos. On 7/2/2009 9:00 AM, Avshalom Houri wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-softwire-lb-03 > Reviewer: Avshalom Houri > Review Date: 2009-07-02 > IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-03 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) -- > > Summary: The document needs to update the security section in order to > be ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. > > Major issues: > > Line 269: > There are no additional security risks introduced by this design. > > - The above is the while text in the security considerations section. > Please specify where the basic security discussion for this was done. > Please also say in few words why do you think that no security issues > are introduced in this document. > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: None > > Thanks > --Avshalom
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
