Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-06
review-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-06-secdir-lc-hardaker-2024-06-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2024-06-17
Requested 2024-06-03
Authors Andrew Ryan , Ben Rosenblum , Nir Baruch Sopher
I-D last updated 2025-07-31 (Latest revision 2024-12-12)
Completed reviews Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Wes Hardaker (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Carsten Bormann (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -10 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Wes Hardaker
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/jYRnsX-R8B_OIddaorJMv4R8GfQ
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-06-17
review-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-06-secdir-lc-hardaker-2024-06-17-00
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.

The summary of the review is: ready

Comments:

* congratulations on a very well written document.  Far cleaner than many others 
  I've reviewed :-)

* 1.3 4th paragarph: ...amount of traffic *that* may be delegated.

* general: I assume that there is a business relationship where one can has a legal
  disincentive to hurt the other?  Eg false information about rates/loads or similar
  are not a concern because the relationship has mechanisms for general resolution outside
  the scope of the features being transmitted?

* 2.1.1.2: the name parameter is discussed as if it's an id, so I'd either change the property
  name or make the text match the property name.  (and I hope no one would violate that SHOULD
  as it really kills monitoring agents when things names change).

* 2.1.1.2: Data percentile: you should (SHOULD) probably use "mean" instead of "average"
  to be mathematically precise.

* 2.2.1.1: I suggest putting a hyphen in "limit types" to make it match the property name above.