Subject: [mif] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:58:18 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-10: 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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch/

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

Thanks for your work on this draft.  I'm fine with it, but have one minor
text suggestion resulting from considering the SecDir review.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05457.html

In 5.1, you may need a clause at the end of this sentence to make sure
the same PvD is used to prevent such issues (it is implied, but may be
better stated explicitly - and is explicitly stated elsewhere).
From:
   As an example, a node administrator could inject a DNS server which
   is not ISP-specific into PvDs for use on any of the networks that the
   node could attach to.  Such creation / augmentation of PvD(s) could
   be static or dynamic. 
To: 
   As an example, a node administrator could inject a DNS server which
   is not ISP-specific into PvDs for use on any of the networks that the
   node could attach via the same PvD.  Such creation / augmentation of
PvD(s) could
   be static or dynamic.