Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis-07
review-ietf-iotops-7228bis-07-secdir-lc-emery-2026-05-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2026-05-06
Requested 2026-04-22
Authors Carsten Bormann , Mehmet Ersue , Ari Keränen , Carles Gomez
I-D last updated 2026-06-04 (Latest revision 2026-05-15)
Completed reviews Artart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Iotdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -07 by Marcus Ihlar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Shawn M Emery
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/LsXZ3EknFTsPEKmVFUhM-D1X4Vg
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-05-06
review-ietf-iotops-7228bis-07-secdir-lc-emery-2026-05-06-00
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 informational draft discusses the terminology used in networks of
constrained-devices that will elucidate further standardization work and
research in this area.

The security considerations section does exist and defers relevant security
aspects to i) the general considerations of constrained-device (RFC7252)
security mechanisms, ii) specific constrained-device protocol RFCs (e.g.,
RFC7416 for Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RLP)), iii) the
implementation security considerations of security protocols on constrained
devices (RFC7815), and iv) a high-level view of constrained-device security
(RFC8576).  I agree with these assertions and appears to be comprehensive.

General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

None.