Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05
review-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05-secdir-telechat-roca-2020-02-27-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-03-03
Requested 2020-02-14
Authors Carlos J. Bernardos , Antonio de la Oliva , Fabio Giust , Juan-Carlos Zúñiga , Alain Mourad
I-D last updated 2020-02-27
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -04 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Ines Robles (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -05 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/lpEyh8JnBdu-xZ_booN9Dg_crCU
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2020-02-27
review-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05-secdir-telechat-roca-2020-02-27-00
Hello,

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.

Summary: Has Nits

Thank you for the clarification of the Security Considerations section.
I just have a minor comment and a typo.

- It is said (section 6):
  "The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit
   this amplification risk."
I agree, but where do you intend to apply pacing? 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? It's a bit unclear.

- Typo: remove one "exist" in sentence: "there may exist multiple previous
(e.g., k) MAARs exist."

Regards,    Vincent