[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-roll-of0-15.txt

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
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 2851721F86D7; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, 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 LlNs6JNaaB4l; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E88421F86B6; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E359B2602BC; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:00:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06816-06; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:00:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocana.ihtfp.org (unknown [192.168.248.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cliodev.ihtfp.com", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (not verified)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF55E260230; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:00:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by mocana.ihtfp.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id p79M0SYE030065; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:00:28 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:00:28 -0400
Message-ID: <sjmr54uutxf.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Cc: pthubert@cisco.com, roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-roll-of0-15.txt
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: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:00:02 -0000

Hi,

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.

   The Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)
   specification defines a generic Distance Vector protocol that is
   adapted to a variety of networks types by the application of specific
   Objective Functions.  An Objective Function defines how a RPL node
   selects and optimizes routes within a RPL Instance based on the
   information objects available.  This document specifies a basic
   Objective Function that relies only on the objects that are defined
   in RPL and does not use any extension.

The security considerations section references the same I.D. twice:

   described in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] and [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl].  This

I suspect that the second instance is a typo and instead it should
refer to a different specification?

Beyond that, I see no security issues with this document.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant