Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-
review-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-secdir-telechat-kent-2012-07-13-00
| 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 | |
| Draft 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 Snapshot | |
| Review |
review-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-secdir-telechat-kent-2012-07-13
|
|
| Result | Not Ready | |
| Completed | 2012-07-13 |
review-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-secdir-telechat-kent-2012-07-13-00
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.
Steve
Attachment:
draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-05.docx
Description:
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document