[manet] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Wed, 28 June 2017 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6504126CF6; Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: manet@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149866238770.7570.2060858148344768585@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:06:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/8a94H5mVD4Ia0ZgT5bXNWS6hEdY>
Subject: [manet] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:06:28 -0000

Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Ready

This draft is well written and in fact provides a wonderful overview of MANET. 
The draft updates RFC5444 based on some operational experience (and thanks for
that); though it does not specify a protocol it is constraining RFC 5444
implementations hence the “updates” header.

>From a security perspective this draft seems fine; there is one
security-related update and it is explained in the security considerations.

>From a non-MANET expert perspective, I have to admit that I found it hard to
figure out exactly what is being “updated”.  It’s a style thing that I’m not
hard over on, but an informative section explaining what got changed would have
really helped this reader.  I will note that there are a couple of places where
the draft is clear that is updates 5444, e.g., s4.4.1, s.4.6,  so I have to
wonder are those the only update?  Or, is it that all the 2119 requirements for
the processing rules update 5444 and you’d only look in 5444 for the packet
formats?