Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec

(1) The request is to publish this document as a Standards Track RFC,
and this is indicated in the document header.

(2) Document Announcement Write-Up.

Technical Summary

The abstract of this document is included below.

This document specifies integrity and replay protection for required
implementation in the MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) and the
Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2). This document
specifies how an included integrity check value (ICV) and a timestamp TLV,
defined in RFC6622bis, are used by NHDP and OLSRv2 for countering a number of
security threats.  The ICV TLV uses a SHA-256 based HMAC and one or more shared
secret keys.  The timestamp TLV is based on POSIX time, and assumes that the
clocks in all routers in the network can be synchronized with sufficient
precision.  The mechanism in this specification can also be used for other
MANET protocols using RFC5444.

Working Group Summary

Working group consensus behind the document is observed as strong. There are
numerous authors and contributors that feel this document is ready to proceed.

Document Quality

The document has received careful review. There are several implementations of
the document.

Personnel

The Document Shepherd is Joseph Macker (jpmacker@gmail.com); the
responsible Area Directors are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.

(3) The document Shepherd has participated in review both in the Working
Group, and has run the "idnits" tool against the draft.

(4) The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the reviews of the
document; they have been thorough.

(5) The authors do not believe that additional reviews are required,
aside from the usual directorate reviews during IETF last call.

(6) The Document Shepherd has no concerns with the document.

(7) All authors have confirmed that they are unaware of any IPR needing
disclosure; there are no known IPR claims related to this document.

(8) No IPR disclosures have been filed, as none are required.

(9) WG consensus appears to be strong.

(10) Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

(11) There is one minor nit:

  == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_
     of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it
     should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.

     This will be corrected in the next revision of the draft (together with
     changes as consequence of AD review, directorate reviews, IETF LC etc.).

(12) MIB Doctor, media type, and URI reviews are not required.

(13) There are only normative references.

(14) Of the normative references, two drafts are not yet RFCs:
      i) draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2 is waiting in the RFC editor queue for this
      document and for draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis ii)
      draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis, which has already passed WG LC without
      objections from the WG, and which is currently proceeding to AD review.

(15) There are no downward normative references in the document.

(16) This document updates RFC 6130. This is noted in the header, but not
discussed in the Abstract or Introduction. The document also possibly updates
the OLSRv2 spec that is in the RFC Editor Queue.

(17) This document has no actions for IANA.

(18) There is no impact on IANA registries.

(19) There are no sections written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF
rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Back