[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-12
Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com> Wed, 06 August 2008 14:22 UTC
Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1CC3A6D59; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE3C3A6D5E; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RynfSWjw68-v; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from n2.nomadiclab.com (n2.nomadiclab.com [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599643A6D59; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from n2.nomadiclab.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n2.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F1C1EF2E2; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:22:33 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by n2.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2991EF297; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:22:33 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <9826EEEE-E610-44DD-8D36-BDFE361FC04D@nomadiclab.com>
From: Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com>
To: Gen-ART Mailing List <gen-art@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:22:32 +0300
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, ronc@resolutenetworks.com, davidz@corrigent.com, thomas.nadeau@bt.com, Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-12
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document..........: draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-12 Reviewer..........: Christian Vogt Review date.......: August 6, 2007 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC I have no objections against publishing this document, yet would suggest considering the following three comments: - Introductory sections 1 through 4: References to related documents are currently scattered across these sections. It would in my opinion make sense to group all these references in a single section, perhaps section 1. This would make it easier for the reader to go back and look them up as it becomes necessary while reading the document. - Security Considerations section: The vulnerabilities discussed in this section do not directly fit into the scope of a Security Considerations sections, because they already exist and are not introduced by the document at hand: (i) consequences of misconfiguration; (ii) security considerations for MIBs in general, such as SET operations in insecure environments, or GET operations on confidential data; (iii) security issues in SNMP versions older than version 3. Notwithstanding this, all of these vulnerabilities are certainly important for network administrators to be aware of. I therefore suggest adding a paragraph at the beginning of the Security Considerations section that explains that the document itself does not introduce new vulnerabilities, but that the following vulnerabilities of related mechanisms should be considered. - Some nits: Abstract: Packet Switch Network -> Packet Switched Network Introduction: Acronym "PSN" is defined twice. Introduction: Acronym "VT" is not defined. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-m… Christian Vogt