Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-

Request Review of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2012-07-17
Requested 2012-07-05
Authors Gregory M. Lebovitz , Manav Bhatia , Brian Weis
I-D last updated 2012-07-13
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -?? by Vijay K. Gurbani
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Stephen Kent
Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Stephen Kent
Tsvdir Last Call review of -?? by Yoshifumi Nishida
Assignment Reviewer Stephen Kent
State Completed
Review review-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-secdir-telechat-kent-2012-07-13
Result Not ready
Completed 2012-07-13
    This is a re-review of this document.  I reviewed version -03 in 
    August of 2011. I provided an extensive

    set of comments and edits in  an effort to improve the readability
    of this doc.  Some of the edits were

    accepted, but many others have been ignored. New text (several pages
    worth) has been added, which has not improved the overall quality of
    the document.

    This document is very, very badly written. It includes made-up names
    for attacks, bad definitions, a messed-up terminology section, an
    inconsistent discussion of threats and attacks, and a set of
    "requirements" that are a mix of useful, vague, and silly
    statements. (One of my favorite examples is the definition of
    INTERFERENCE attacks, which begins by saying that "ADDING NOISE" is
    a type of INTERFERENCE attack. Since this does not appear to be a
    discussion taking  place in the RF context, this is not a helpful
    bullet! The extensive use of uppercase words 

    is also not much of an aid to readability.)

    The threat/attack discussion is a hodgepodge; it gives the reader
    the sense that the topics that have been included are arbitrary,
    with no sense of a taxonomy or a comprehensive, consistent treatment
    of threats and attacks.

    This document requires significant work to become an RFC that will
    be a useful guide for the KARP WG,

    and not an embarrassment to the IETF.

    An annotated, edited version of the doc is attached.