Re: [manet] Mail regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale

I recommend to post new version with advised changes,

AB

On 3/11/13, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This I-D just completed IETF last call.
> The only discussion was around the Security Directorate review by Steve
> Kent.
> After some debate it became clear that Steve had misconstrued the scope of
> the
> document and, with explanation, he reduced his concern to:
>
> I think the easiest/best fix is for the authors to not use the (almost
> outlawed)
> phrase "This document does not specify any security considerations."
>
> While I don't believe this is a show-stopper, it does tie with one of the
> questions I raised in my review and I suspect that the issue will continue
> to be
> raised (e.g. by the Sec ADs). Furthermore, we can do a little better for
> posterity.
>
> So I suggest that the entirety of Section 8 be replaced as:
>
> Security issues arising from the inclusion of metrics in OLSRv2 did not get
> any
> specific discussion. Since OLSRv2 has its own security considerations to
> cover
> the whole protocol, there is nothing further to say in this document.
>
> [Or please propose alternative text].
>
> ---
>
> Additionally, in his email of 2/26 Chris noted:
>
>> We had intended to put in a comment that if you want a node metric,
>> add it to incoming link metrics. I think from the author team I dropped
>> the ball on that one.
>
> So there is a small amount of text needed there.
>
> ---
>
> I would be happy to do this as an RFC editor note or for you to post a new
> I-D.
>
> If the former, please send me text. If the latter please post a new
> version.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>