Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09
review-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09-genart-lc-yong-2016-09-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-09-27
Requested 2016-09-15
Draft last updated 2016-09-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Lucy Yong (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Lucy Yong
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09-genart-lc-yong-2016-09-23
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 10)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2016-09-23

Review
review-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09-genart-lc-yong-2016-09-23






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




For more information, please see the FAQ at




 




<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.




 




Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09




     Multi-Path Time Synchronization




Reviewer: Lucy Yong




Review Date: 23-Sept-2016




IETF LC End Date: 28-Sept-2016




IESG Telechat date: 29-Sept-2016




 




Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a standard track RFC. Some minor comments. Some nits need to be corrected. 





 




PS: comment for IESG. The document specifies puzzles approach and related protocol to boost the difficulty for DDoS attacks. The protocol description is simple and short; however it spends many pages (section 7) to describe the processes
 at the Initiator and the Responder. Maybe in future IETF can consider accepting protocol software code in a RFC. This will be easier for author and no need for programmers to read the description and program it (sure they will not come out the same program
 logic).




 




Major issues: N/A




 




Minor issues: 




 




Section 1: 2

nd

 paragraph, bot-nets, 




Comment: what is the bot-nets?




 




Section 7.1.1.2, 1

st

 paragraph




Comment: “that must be used”, should it be “that MUST be used” or “that is used”?




 




 




Nits/editorial comments: 




 




Section 6: 




 




s/

the puzzle difficulty should/the puzzle difficulty SHOULD/    





 




s/This will This will/This will/




 




Section 7.1




 




s/

the IKE Responder should/the IKE Responder SHOULD/




s/that puzzles/puzzles/




 




Section 7.1.1.1




s/next to/nearly/




s/the level should/the level SHOULD/




 




Section 7.1.1.2




s/([RFC7696])/[RFC7696]/




s/with another, and negotiate/with another and negotiate/




s/an SA payload, containing/an SA payload containing/




s/this type must/this type MUST/




 




Section 7.1.1.3




s/should/SHOULD/ (3 places)




s/blob/block/




s/may continue to generate/MAY continually generate/




 




Section 7.1.3




s/the solution to the puzzle contain/the puzzle solution contains/




s/i.e./i.e.,/ (2 places)




 




Section 7.1.4




s/must/MUST/ (2 places)




 




Section 7.2




s/The Responder should/The Responder SHOULD/




 




Section 7.2.2




s/message, containing/message containing/




 




Section 7.2.4




s/operations i.e.  computing/operations, i.e., computing/




 




Section 8.1




s/PRF must/PRF MUST/




 




Section 9




s/Initiators should/Initiators SHOULD/




 




Section 10




s/Care must/Care MUST/