Last Call Review of draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-01
review-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-01-secdir-lc-takahashi-2014-07-22-00

Request Review of draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2014-08-05
Requested 2014-07-10
Draft last updated 2014-07-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Martin Thomson (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -04 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Takeshi Takahashi
State Completed
Review review-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-01-secdir-lc-takahashi-2014-07-22
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-07-22

Review
review-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-01-secdir-lc-takahashi-2014-07-22

Hello,

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 document defines the term "opportunistic security" and describes its
design philosophy.
The document begins with describing the difficulties to realize perfect
security and talks about the benefit of having opportunistic security.
The term "opportunistic security" is roughly defined at the end of section
1, and section 2 describes the design principles that realize the
opportunistic security.
Finally, the 2nd last paragraph of the section 2 clearly defines the term
"opportunistic security"

It is an interesting document, and I think it is ready.
Considering the intensive discussions in these months(on the saag mailing
list) and the nature of the document (informational), I see no reason to
block the document moving forward.

Below are minor comments.

1.
In addition to defining the term "opportunistic security", this document
also describes the design philosophy of opportunistic security (in section
2).
The abstract could be changed so that it can say this document also talks
about the design philosophy.

2.
It is really just a comment.
When I was reading this document for the first time, I was feeling a bit
uneasy; I was expecting to see the clear definition of the term first, then
to see the design philosophy, but this document describes the design
philosophy of the opportunistic security before having clear definition of
the term(2nd last paragraph of section 2, starting with "In summary").
Having said that, the current structure is also fine, since this document is
short and concise.
Moreover, readers can have clear picture of the opportunistic security in
mind by the time they reach the sentences defining the term.

3.
The security consideration is fairly short, but I think it is ok.
All it says is that opportunistic security is not the maximal security, but
it is much secure than no security. That explanation is fine for me.

Kind regards,

Take