• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: savi

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-05-23 16:23 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR

2013-05-16 14:01 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT

2013-04-15 18:01 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2013-04-15 17:07 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to EDIT

2013-04-15 17:07 (System)

Announcement was received by RFC Editor

2013-04-15 13:46 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress

2013-04-15 13:45 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2013-04-15 13:42 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2013-04-15 13:42 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2013-04-15 13:42 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2013-04-15 13:42 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2013-04-11 10:37 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation

2013-04-11 09:33 Cindy Morgan

Ballot writeup was changed

2013-04-11 09:11 Jari Arkko

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART reviewer indicates that the earlier issues have been resolved, and I have myself performed a re-review comparing -10 to -05 that I had a long time ago sponsored... I'm glad that the document has now reached the situation where it can be approved.

2013-04-11 09:11 Jari Arkko

Ballot comment text updated for Jari Arkko

2013-04-11 08:32 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot comment]

So two years later: Thanks for clearing my discuss points!

2013-04-11 08:32 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-04-11 08:06 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise

2013-04-11 07:42 Sean Turner

[Ballot comment]
Well written!

I'm putting this first one in as a comment based on the 1st sentence in the security considerations where you say you're not doing a comprehensive threat analysis:

1) It'd be really good to characterize the attacker somewhere early in the document. s4.1.7 indicates that it's not clear that providing spoofing protection among the devices within a "residence" is needed because of a lack of threat. If it was a business residence (e.g., hotspot or whatever in a coffee shop) does this still hold true?

2) And now for some nits:

s1: traffic To do/traffic. To do
s3.1.3: r/poisoning attacks are attacks aimed at/poisoning attacks are aimed at
s3.2.2: Isn't Third Party Recon really traffic analysis?
s4: r/For example, With these/For example, with these
s4.3.2: r/for IPv address/for IPv6 address
These are based on Dan's comments on -05 (I think that's the right version). He's right that 802.1x is about supplicants/devices. yeah users use them, but ...
s4.2.3.3: r/user/device or supplicant which is term they use
s4.2.3.3: r/tools confirm/this mechanism confirms
s4.2.3.3: r/use the network/access the network
s4.2.3.3: r/the user/the device/supplicant

We should really have a security consideration about whether smurf attacks are worse than the zombie apocalypse and what we should do to mitigate our risk if they happened at the same time.

2013-04-11 07:42 Sean Turner

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.