Subject: [DMM] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 21:51:19 -0800

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Mirja Kühlewind's and Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS position.

** Section 6. Per “The CMD SHOULD use a pacing approach to limit this
amplification risk”, could you address Vincent Roca’s SECDIR Review (thank
you!) question “should that pacing be on the 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?”

** Section 6.  To provide normative language:
s/This requires security associations to exist between the involved MAARs/
Hence, security associations are REQUIRED to exist between the involved MAARs/

Editorial Nit:
** Section 6. s/there may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs exist/ there
may exist multiple previous (e.g., k) MAARs/

---

From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 19:05:46 +0100

Hi Roman,

Thanks a lot for your review. Please see inline below my comments.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif/

[CB] I've addressed all their points, hopefully in a way satisfactory to
them.

> delaying some PBU/PBA messages) or in the outgoing queue (i.e., to limit

[CB] Done.

> Hence, security associations are REQUIRED to exist between the involved

[CB] Fixed, thanks.

> [CB] Fixed, thanks.

Thanks a lot for your review!

Carlos