Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:29:34 -0500

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.

Overall, the document looks great. This is a very information-dense 
document and the authors and contributors have done a wonderful job of 
putting it together. While I do not follow the technology, I was able to 
understand the concepts and I could see that the security considerations 
were appropriate.

Some very small nits that the authors may want to consider:
- the terms DODAG, DIO, and DAO are not expanded anywhere. (Yeah, I know 
I could go look them up... ;-)
- The 2nd paragraph in 9.3 ends with "Known schemes". I figure someone 
was going to write something more there.

Regards,
Chris

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:48:08 -0400

Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > 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.

Chris thank you for this.

    > putting it together. While I do not follow the technology, I was able
    > to understand the concepts and I could see that the security
    > considerations were appropriate.

    > - the terms DODAG, DIO, and DAO are not expanded anywhere. (Yeah, I
    > know I could go look them up... ;-)

They are common terms from RFC6550 which is our core document.
Would it work to say that they are from RFC6550 and rfc7102?

    > was going to write something more there.

seems like an edit error. Nancy?

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG outgoing co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 17:51:36 -0500

Hi Michael,

> Would it work to say that they are from RFC6550 and rfc7102?
I'm thinking it would be a lot easier to just expand them the first time 
they're used in the document. That's how all the other acronyms are treated.

Regards,
Chris