Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-rpl-11

Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com> Wed, 15 September 2010 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <tena@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6683A6922; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.296, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 D4qw2iiHhKcF; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08B43A6867; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L8R00AQ2PTBQN@szxga02-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:03:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L8R00HS3PTBDP@szxga02-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:03:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from z00147053k ([10.70.39.122]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L8R00JYHPTBA9@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:03:11 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:03:11 +0800
From: Tina TSOU <tena@huawei.com>
To: Tim Winter <wintert@acm.org>
Message-id: <65F35EC6237847ACABFFBD50FE21E405@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006030031110.25000@fledge.watson.org> <44BCD8D277C6479097DB80AF063B4325@china.huawei.com> <4C8F9B6A.1080708@acm.org>
Cc: secdir-secretary@mit.edu, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-rpl@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-rpl-11
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:03:00 -0000

Tim,
That's fine for me.

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Winter" <wintert@acm.org>;
To: "Tina TSOU" <tena@huawei.com>;
Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>;; <secdir@ietf.org>;; <secdir-secretary@mit.edu>;; 
<draft-ietf-roll-rpl@tools.ietf.org>;
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-rpl-11


> Hi Tina,
>
> On 08/31/2010 11:22 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
> > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
> > area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> > comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> >
> > This draft is well written. I only have two comments.
> >
> > 1. It is lack of manageability aspects to produce MIB;
>
> As far as the MIB in general, we did not define a MIB but instead did
> describe some general manageability aspects in Section 17.  We chose to
> defer to the CoRE working group and other future work to specify the
> details, as introduced in Section 17.1:
>
>        Most of the existing IETF management standards are Structure of
>        Management Information (SMI) based data models (MIB modules) to
>        monitor and manage networking devices.
>
>        For a number of protocols, the IETF community has used the IETF
>        Standard Management Framework, including the Simple Network
>        Management Protocol [RFC3410], the Structure of Management
>        Information [RFC2578], and MIB data models for managing new
>        protocols.
>
>        As pointed out in [RFC5706], the common policy in terms of 
> operation
>        and management has been expanded to a policy that is more open to a
>        set of tools and management protocols rather than strictly relying
>        on a single protocol such as SNMP.
>
>        In 2003, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a workshop on
>        Network Management [RFC3535] that discussed the strengths and
>        weaknesses of some IETF network management protocols and compared
>        them to operational needs, especially configuration.
>
>        One issue discussed was the user-unfriendliness of the binary 
> format
>        of SNMP [RFC3410].  In the case of LLNs, it must be noted that at
>        the time of writing, the CoRE Working Group is actively working on
>        resource management of devices in LLNs.  Still, it is felt that 
> this
>        section provides important guidance on how RPL should be deployed,
>        operated, and managed.
>
> More specifically, we propose to add some text to call out aspects of
> security manageability.
>
>
> > 2. Should be added flow examples for RPL;
>
> We can come up with a few illustrative examples and add those to the 
> draft.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > B. R.  Tina http://tinatsou.weebly.com/index.html
> >
> >
>
>
> Does this address your concerns?
>
> Regards,
>
> -RPL Authors
>