Hi, Dan, Thank you for this review. I'm confident both comments can be clarified in a minor revision.
However, I did have a question about the end at "Nits/editorial comments:" -- was there additional feedback intended there, or was this section intended to be empty? Thanks, Joe On 12/15/2014 5:31 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=AAICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=sITgTP84yGaHOlBBZiB9yr8yJ3saUDz_ezXr0_7zXR0&s=ToxyMtIhluT9g1P7ZBH2FQN1ysRhib5pmy7-QEPiUBo&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=AAICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=sITgTP84yGaHOlBBZiB9yr8yJ3saUDz_ezXr0_7zXR0&s=ToxyMtIhluT9g1P7ZBH2FQN1ysRhib5pmy7-QEPiUBo&e=%20>>. > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06.txt > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > > Review Date: 12/15/14 > > IETF LC End Date: 12/22/14 > > IESG Telechat date: not yet > > > > Summary: Ready with issues > > > > The document is very clear and well written. I suggest that the author > addresses the couple of issues raised here which are not show stoppers > but their resolution can further improve the quality of the document. > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > 1. The abstract says: > > > > Ø This document provides recommendations to application and service > designers on how to use the transport protocol port number space. > > > > Section 1. Introduction says: > > > > Ø This document provides information and advice to system designers on > the use of transport port numbers. > > > > In Section 7.2 ‘system designers’ appears again: > > > > Ø … system designers cannot yet rely on their presence. > > Ø > > > > I do not like ‘system designers’ because this term is vague and not > defined. Beyond the inconsistency in terminology which is obvious in > page 2, there is also room for confusion because ‘system’ is used with a > completely different meaning as in ‘system port’. > > > > I suspect that in section 1 ‘system designers’ is meant to be an alias > for the ‘application and service designers’ from the intro, while in > section 7.2 it’s rather meant to be an alias for ‘network designers’. If > I am right I suggest replacing in both places. > > > > 2. The privacy considerations are not mentioned at all in the > document. It seems to me that detecting in clear the port numbers and > mapping this information to the source/destination addresses can provide > information about specific hosts running specific services. I believe > that this aspect should be mentioned either in the security > considerations section or in a separate privacy considerations section, > and in section 5, together with the paragraphs that mentions the > capability of intermediate devices to monitor available services, > monitor or intercept traffic. > > > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
