From: Laurence.Duquerroy@esa.int [mailto:Laurence.Duquerroy@esa.int] Sent: Thu 7/31/2008 13:02 To: Cruickshank HS Dr (CCSR) Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; Stephane.Combes@esa.int Subject: RE: WG Last-Call (WGLC) for comments: draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-08
Dear Haitham,
I reviewed the draft this morning. It is now in a very good shape. I just have a couple of comments, that you can find below:
page 12 - in the case 2 description: I don't understand why req2 (protection of NPA address) is associated with MAC, digital signatures or TESLA...Is it not included with the Case 1 requirements?
page 12 - in the case 2 description: " In terms of outsiders attacks, group authentication using MAC should provide the same level of security ": as what ? I am not sure that the meaning of this sentence is very clear.
page 21 - A.1.2: Identity protection is not included in the list of security feautres that the new security ext header will provide. However in section 5 - p 13, this feature belongs to the base profile.
And a couple of corrections (between dash)
page 4 : the all-zeros PID as well as other PID values - are - reserved
page 14: the security threats and requirement-s- presented in this document
page 20: (shown as the key Management Group server block in figure 2 - ) -
page 22 : GCKS : the signification of this acronym is missing
RE: WG Last-Call (WGLC) for comments: draft-ietf-ipdvb-sec-req-08
Many thanks Laurence for agreeing to review this draft.
Please make your review by 1 August. Many thanks.
Haitham
---- Dr. Haitham S. Cruickshank Lecturer Communications Centre for Communication Systems Research (CCSR) BA Building, Room E11 School of Electronics, Computing and Mathematics University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH