Subject: [lisp] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:41:38 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09: 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-lisp-crypto/

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

Thanks for your work on this draft.  I think the draft would read better
if the content of the Abstract is repeated in the introduction.  If you
read just the introduction, it is not clear what this draft is about, the
abstract text is needed to have an understanding.

In the introduction, I'm not sure what this means:
   Packets that arrive at
   the ITR or PITR are typically not modified, which means no protection
   or privacy of the data is added.

Do you mean modified as in 'not encrypted' or something else?  It would
be easier to read if what you meant was clearly stated.

It's followed by this sentence:
   If the source host encrypts the
   data stream then the encapsulated packets can be encrypted but would
   be redundant.

But the introduction doesn't clearly say what this would be redundant to.
 Can you clarify this text too?

Thanks for addressing the SecDir review.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06835.html

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:15:40 -0700

> abstract text is needed to have an understanding.

Thanks Kathleen for your review. We’ll repeat the Abstract as the first paragraph of the Introducation section.

> be easier to read if what you meant was clearly stated.

I meant “not encrypted”. Will clarify.

> Can you clarify this text too?

All the statement means is the packet would be encrypted twice. I’ll make the point ore clear.

> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06835.html

No prob.

Thanks,
Dino