Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01
review-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01-secdir-lc-kivinen-2014-02-13-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-02-07 | |
Requested | 2014-01-30 | |
Authors | Christopher Dearlove , Thomas H. Clausen | |
I-D last updated | 2014-02-13 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -01
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Tero Kivinen (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tero Kivinen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-02-13 |
review-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01-secdir-lc-kivinen-2014-02-13-00
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 document seems to fix some cases in the NHDP and OLSRv2 TLVs where the original document might have been considered saying that unknown values in the TLVs can be used as a reason to reject message. This document makes it clear how unknown values in the TLVs needs to be processed. This document also creates several IANA registries for the TLV values and changes couple of the TLV values from numbers to bitfields (the existing values were already allocated so that the numbers can be parsed as bitfield). Security considerations section mentions that as this does not really change the current implementations, it more or less describes how new extensions should be processed with implementations it does not add any new security considerations. New extensions might of course add new security considerations but those should be addressed in the documents which make those extensions. The document is ready with nits. Some nits: In the IANA considerations section the IANA is used both in singular and plural, i.e. it says both "IANA is requested" and "IANA are requested". This should be fixed to say "IANA is requested". -- kivinen at iki.fi