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

[Tina TSOU <[e-mail]>]

Tim,
That's fine for me.

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Winter" <[e-mail]>
To: "Tina TSOU" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; 
<[e-mail]>
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
>