[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-05
Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> Wed, 29 February 2012 03:58 UTC
Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C12A21F871E; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:58:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.421, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DCTHPv2KvWgn; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-8.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4163621F871C; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:58:11 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074425-b7f4a6d0000008e0-96-4f4da252b6da
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 1D.27.02272.252AD4F4; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:58:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id q1T3w52r016581; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:58:10 -0500
Received: from cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (CATHODE-DARK-SPACE.MIT.EDU [18.18.1.96]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id q1T3w1Z1024314 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:58:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from tlyu@localhost) by cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id q1T3w1bM001317; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:58:01 -0500 (EST)
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib.all@tools.ietf.org
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:58:01 -0500
Message-ID: <ldvvcmqmgty.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
Lines: 15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nohu0yNff4NtBeYtZj1eyWMz4M5HZ 4sPChywOzB5Llvxk8vhy+TNbAFMUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8bNO0eZCg6yVXQeamFuYNzO2sXI ySEhYCLxZNs3FghbTOLCvfVsXYxcHEIC+xgljm3azw6SEBLYwCjxqD0RInGFSeLj+9vsEE4X o8SEaTuB2jk4RAQSJC6vyQJpEBawlTiwewcTSJhNQFri6OIykDCLgKpE/+pusJm8AhYSl06s BbN5BDglmpbsZoaIC0qcnPkE7CBmAS2JG/9eMk1g5JuFJDULSWoBI9MqRtmU3Crd3MTMnOLU ZN3i5MS8vNQiXQu93MwSvdSU0k2M4EBzUd3BOOGQ0iFGAQ5GJR5eaX5ffyHWxLLiytxDjJIc TEqivGbzgEJ8SfkplRmJxRnxRaU5qcWHGCU4mJVEeNMNgHK8KYmVValF+TApaQ4WJXFeTa13 fkIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZGQ4OJQneEwuBGgWLUtNTK9Iyc0oQ0kwcnCDDeYCGrwep4S0uSMwt zkyHyJ9iVJQS510OkhAASWSU5sH1whLBK0ZxoFeEeXeAVPEAkwhc9yugwUxAgwM4vUEGlyQi pKQaGJflcH7ZETI3/D6LdIVtrQZjTIqn4KN/nIouc7gS9YU+7c/ptp/2oMtsj4aMXWnbuv5m U6dX7zIeGVbev2A8fbWba/GWqzIzVurxd0S9bWO7GWS8M8q7h2PHHDtVgyNWabP+CzcdvN9f 9X6JfkOyjUKt/K9dH6U2CC38ur5wr55Digab8MR3SizFGYmGWsxFxYkAZDjKnt8CAAA=
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-atm-mib-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 29 Feb 2012 03:58:13 -0000
The Security Considerations section cites a number of informative references when describing some mandatory (RFC2119) behavior. I think that these should be normative references. These include RFC3410, RFC3414, RFC3826, RFC5591, RFC5592, and RFC6353. (I believe that draft-ietf-adslmib-gbond-mib-09 has similar issues.) The mention of gBondAtmPortConfTable when illustrating the sensitivity of read-write parameters was initially confusing to me because it is marked as having a MAX-ACCESS of not-accessible. I eventually figured out that was because it is a "conceptual table" in the sense of RFC2578, and that the individual read-write elements are the issue. This might not be a difficulty for someone who is already familiar with SMIv2. I believe the rest of the Security Considerations section is adequate.