Ballot for draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
The introduction in section 1 needs to mention this message: This revision to RFC 6779 is necessitated by the update to RFC 6130 specified in RFC 7466. Thanks for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06#section-1.1 The MIB doctor review was done by Mike MacFaden. And the rfcdiff between RFC6779 and this document looks about right. Finally, keeping https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html in consideration, I believe this work is clearly justified as it updates an existing MIB module.
I'll wait for the response to Stephen's question as I also noticed the boilerplate wasn't used (SecDir review did too, kinda). I do appreciate the descriptions provided for the threats associated with the read/write read/create objects. Thanks for that.
- My review is based on the diff at [1] - The security considerations section doesn't seem to reflect the latest boilerplate. [2] Should it? I'm not making this a discuss as it's a minor change to a MIB and I accept that it's arguable that folks might not update their SNMP security code whilst doing this. But I don't think I've seen this case before (minor update to MIB without changed security boilerplate) so maybe the IESG should chat about it to decide if there's anything to be done here. [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6779&url2=draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06 [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security