Hi Melinda, I will address your comments on the revision on this draft. Thanks.
Best Regards, Paul On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:37 AM Melinda Shore via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Melinda Shore > Review result: Not Ready > > I've marked this "not ready" only because of the quality of the writing, > which > is both unidiomatic and ungrammatical throughout the document. But, the > draft > has been through working group last call, and if the working group is good > with > it, I'm good with it - I'm here to do a security review, and it's basically > fine in that regard. > > A couple of nits: > > In section 6, it seems to me that by having two different dampening > messages > you risk having both no-dampening and on-repetition active at the same time > (implementers don’t always make good decisions). Setting on-repetition to > an > impossible value (say, -1) could serve the same purpose as no-dampening and > avoid possible implementation errors. > > I'm curious why you’re monitoring system things (cpu, disk), since > presumably > those are also being monitored elsewhere. > > In the security considerations section you may want to discuss some of the > limitations of relying not he transport protocol to protect the data, > particularly around data authenticity, etc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
