Subject: Re: [Dime] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dime-congestion-flow-attributes-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 17:46:07 -0500

Thanks for the response. I've removed sections for points that do not 
seem to need further discussion.

Ben.

On 15 Jun 2015, at 11:43, Bertz, Lyle T [CTO] wrote:

[...]

>
> substantive:
>
> -- Abstract: I concur with Stephen that the abstract doesn't really 
> address the heart of the matter. (It also seems longer than needed.)
>
>>>>> We responded to Stephen's comments regarding the intro.  If you 
>>>>> could give your feedback on that thread it would be much 
>>>>> appreciated.

The first paragraph of the abstract in version 2 is better. If it were 
me, I'd move the rest to the introduction, if they are not already 
covered, and keep the abstract to one paragraph. But that's up to you.

>
> --6, first sentence.
>
> I’d like to see a little more “show your work" here. These AVPs 
> carry new kinds of content. That, in itself, might add new security 
> considerations (e.g. is the content privacy-sensitive, especially 
> damaging if tampered with, etc). Please consider adding a few 
> sentences describing the new content, and why you believe that content 
> does or does not have new security considerations. You kind of do that 
> for ECN-IP-Codepoint and Congestion-Treatment, but I don't see 
> anything for the other two new AVPs.
>
> (I'm probably the other person that Stephen mentioned consider such 
> sentences as a red flag.)
>
>>>>> Ok.  Bigger update here.

[...]

The new security considerations are considerably improved, thanks!

[...]