Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02
review-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02-secdir-lc-dekok-2015-09-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-09-10
Requested 2015-09-03
Authors Al Morton
Draft last updated 2015-09-17
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Alan DeKok (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Nevil Brownlee (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Alan DeKok
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02-secdir-lc-dekok-2015-09-17
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-09-17

Review
review-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02-secdir-lc-dekok-2015-09-17

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 requests IANA allocation of registries for OWAMP.   As such, it has minimal security impact.

  One practical note is the request to assign an "Experimentation" OWAMP-Control Command Number.  Experience shows that such numbers are either never used, or used as experiments... which then get widely deployed before standards action catches up to practical needs.

  It may be good to add some discussion as to *how* experiments are done, and how experiments can transition from the "Experimentation" number to a standard number.

  One suggestion would be to change the label from "Experimentation" to "Site-Local".  That would still allow sites to experiment with OWAMP-Control commands, but would make it clearer that such experimentation is only for the local site, and MUST NOT be used in a  wider context.