Roman, We have expanded text in the Security section of the latest revision of the draft. I hope that addresses your DISCUSS concerns.
Please review the latest revision, -Rishabh On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:35 AM Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Roman, > For your DISCUSS comment, can you please elaborate on what DoS risks are > you concerned about that we should add to the Security section document? > > I will address your two COMMENT items in the next revision. > > Thanks for your review, > -Rishabh > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 7:28 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15: Discuss >> >> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ >> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I appreciate the mention of RFC8402 and RFC8754’s Security >> Considerations. >> Both reiterate the need to filter traffic at the SR domain boundary and >> the >> notion that trusting the nodes in the SR domain. However, this document >> is >> introducing new SR behavior (replication). This new behavior introduces >> additional DoS risk which should be documented. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thank you to Mohit Sethi for the SECDIR review. >> >> I support Erik Kline’s DISCUSS position. >> >> ** Section 2.2.1. Typo. s/secion/section/ >> >> ** Section 2.2.1. Please don’t use RFC2119 keywords in the non-normative >> S07-08 text. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >> >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
