IETF conflict review for draft-avula-shwmp
conflict-review-avula-shwmp-00
Yes
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-04-06)
Unknown
These comments are provided for information of the ISE in the hope that they can be used to benefit the document. --- This document as introduced to the MANET mailing list on 25th Feb 2014 at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15943.html. This responded in a short thread discussing the document. it is worth reading the whole thread since it raises some questions about the content of the document, and other questions about whether the material should be discussed in the IEEE. --- Approaching my 5742 conflict review I commissioned a Routing Directorate review from Thomas Clausen. Thomas is an expert in this type of protocol although he does most of his work within the IETF not the IEEE. You can see Thomas's review at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir/current/msg02130.html. The review concludes that there is no conflict with IETF work (see my 5742 conflict review), but also warns of potential conflict with work done in the IEEE. Additionally, the review makes a number of comments on the style, content, and technical matter of the document.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-04-07)
Unknown
Definitely support suggesting that the ISE discuss this with the IEEE.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-04-08)
Unknown
Agree with Adrian and Brian.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-04-10)
Unknown
I agree with my esteemed colleagues that it would be beneficial for the ISE to discuss with IEEE.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-04-09)
Unknown
I agree with Stephen.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-04-09)
Unknown
From a quick read, I'd be shocked if independent implementations could interop. It seems very underspecified, definitely in terms of the crypto but also in e.g. protocol terms where you need a PKG and KDC and afaik those aren't part of the underlying IEEE stuff and nor are they documented here at all that I can see. One suggestion for the author and ISE might be to see if the CFRG are interested in the crypto parts of this. I could imagine a world where this'd be a fine -00 draft for CFRG to work from, if they were interested in the topic. I didn't try figure out if the security claims made are justified either btw. I think it'd be a fine thing if the ISE did want to (or has already) gotten someone to check those. I don't think those claims are entirely obvious nor would checking them be trivial, espcially with the level of underspecification here.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown