Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01

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 Snapshot
Review review-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01-secdir-lc-kivinen-2014-02-13
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 05)
Result Has nits
Completed 2014-02-13
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