[manet] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06: 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-manet-rfc6779bis/



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


- My review is based on the diff at [1]

- The security considerations section doesn't seem to
reflect the latest boilerplate. [2] Should it? I'm not
making this a discuss as it's a minor change to a MIB and
I accept that it's arguable that folks might not update
their SNMP security code whilst doing this. But I don't
think I've seen this case before (minor update to MIB
without changed security boilerplate) so maybe the IESG
should chat about it to decide if there's anything to be
done here.

   [1]
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6779&url2=draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06
   [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security