Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-indus-routing-reqs-05

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 16:49:43 +0900

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.

Grammatical and spelling errors are fairly prevalent; a close check would be
beneficial.

The page title is hyphenated gobbledygook.

The acronym "WSN" is used without previous expansion in section 2.2.

In section 2.2.1, s/Form afar/From afar/.

There is no "Security Considerations" section.

The majority of the references to security have to do with general network
or node security, not with the security requirements placed upon the routing
protocol itself; this is a serious omission, I think and one that should be
rectified before publication.  Similarly, a large amount of background
information on the operation of industrial plants is given, but little of
this information is tied specifically to the routing requirements
themselves.

In several instances technically extraneous claims are made for the need for
some feature, as if these claims were statements of fact.  For example,
section 8 begins:

   Various economic factors have contributed to a reduction of trained
   workers in the plant.  The industry as a whole appears to be trying
   to solve this problem with what is called the "wireless worker".
   Carrying a PDA or something similar, this worker will be able to
   accomplish more work in less time than the older, better-trained
   workers that he or she replaces.  

There are several other ways in which this could be put (none of them quite
as flattering to the corporate bosses) but in any case, irrelevant to the
goal of specifying routing requirements.  

I don't know what an "External Informative Reference" is (section 13.3), nor
why one would treat it differently than any other informative reference.

~gwz

At one time in the US, in the mid-nineteenth century, working for wage labor
was considered not very different from chattel slavery...anyone who thinks
it's legitimate to be a wage laborer is internalizing oppression in a way
which would have seemed intolerable to people in the mills 150 years ago.
  -- Noam Chomsky, "Propaganda & the Public Mind"

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 10:40:31 +0100

Hi Glen,

I just wanted to check that it really was the -05 version that you looked 
at.

Some of the issues you report show in -04 but were fixed in -05.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 8:49 AM
Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-roll-indus-routing-reqs-05

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 19:17:22 +0900

> Some of the issues you report show in -04 but were fixed in -05.

OK, so just ignore them.

> > Grammatical and spelling errors are fairly prevalent; a close check
> would
> > be
> > beneficial.
> >
> > protocol itself; this is a serious omission, I think and one that
> should
> > be
> > In several instances technically extraneous claims are made for the
> need
> > for
> > I don't know what an "External Informative Reference" is (section
> 13.3),
> > nor
> > At one time in the US, in the mid-nineteenth century, working for
> wage
> > labor