Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-
review-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-secdir-lc-tsou-2010-03-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2010-03-19
Requested 2010-03-03
Authors Al Morton, Murtaza Chiba
Draft last updated 2010-03-19
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Tina Tsou
Assignment Reviewer Tina Tsou
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-secdir-lc-tsou-2010-03-19
Review completed: 2010-03-19

Review
review-ietf-ippm-twamp-session-cntrl-secdir-lc-tsou-2010-03-19

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.






A nit: in the first paragraph of section 2, the second sentence is outdated 


and should be deleted.








In paragraph 3 of section 4.2, given that there is no change to the 


TWAMP-test packet format, I assume we use the exact TWAMP-test packet format 


as defined RFC5357, so that the SID is not carried in the test packets. My 


question is that how the reflector just whether a TWAMP-test packet belongs 


to the same session/SID or not. Since per definition the testing message 


does not include SID, how to differentiate the testing message of different 


testing sessions after multiple testing started?






This is not obvious and the text should be improved to make it clear how 


this works.





B. R.
Tina


http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html