Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-arkko-pana-iana-

Request Review of draft-arkko-pana-iana
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2010-03-06
Requested 2010-02-11
Authors Jari Arkko , Alper E. Yegin
I-D last updated 2010-02-20
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Dan Harkins
Assignment Reviewer Dan Harkins
State Completed
Review review-arkko-pana-iana-secdir-lc-harkins-2010-02-20
Completed 2010-02-20

  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.

  This draft changes the IANA rules for allocation of protocol fields
to include "IESG approval". It really has no security considerations
and this draft shouldn't warrant much attention from the ADs.

  That said, however, I did find the rationale for relaxing the rules a
bit unconvincing. When RFC 5191 was approved the reasons in the rationale
applied but "IESG approval" was not included. Perhaps it was an oversight
and the WG didn't really want such rigid rules. Or maybe deployment
experience has caused a change of heart. Why now? And why add "IESG
review"? Why not "First Come First Served" or "Expert Review"? What is
it about "IESG review" that makes it appropriate to add now? The
rationale in section 2 could use a bit more explanation. And it seems
strange, to me at least, that a non-WG draft is relaxing rules the WG
set up intentionally for its protocol.

  "IESG approval" is supposed to be rare (according to RFC 5226) so maybe
it would be possible to partition the ranges, leaving the lion's share
the way it was-- "IETF review"-- and giving a reasonable chunk to "IESG
approval" for the rare cases that this route is going to be used? If this
was considered and rejected it might be good to mention that in section 2.