[secdir] secdir review of draft-binay-tictoc-ptp-mib

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 02 March 2016 17:41 UTC

From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: "'iesg@ietf.org'" <iesg@ietf.org>, "'secdir@ietf.org'" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-vinay-tictoc-ptp-mib.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-vinay-tictoc-ptp-mib.all@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-binay-tictoc-ptp-mib
Thread-Index: AdF0qjnK4/zyJuQBQOuVwbdY1gkHkg==
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 17:41:40 +0000
Message-ID: <9b6fb08db3b1430da5f218033a4a5265@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/WQtqM3wcogl5tchJTGyPfMlWrwg>
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-binay-tictoc-ptp-mib
Precedence: list

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.

Summary: ready with nits.

This is a read-only MIB.  I didn't realize that until the end.  PLEASE put that in the abstract.  Perhaps replace "objects for managing networks" to "objects for monitoring networks"

Also the abstract talks about SNMPv2 and v1.  Why are those mentioned?  And why called out in the abstract as important?  Perhaps add "For backward compatibility," at the start of that last sentence.

The security considerations sections seem fine.
--  
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz

[secdir] secdir review of draft-binay-tictoc-ptp-… Salz, Rich