Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09
review-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09-secdir-lc-rose-2019-10-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-10-14
Requested 2019-09-30
Authors Charles E. Perkins , Mike McBride , Dorothy Stanley , Warren "Ace" Kumari , Juan-Carlos Zúñiga
I-D last updated 2019-10-13
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -09 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Tal Mizrahi (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -11 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Kyle Rose
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/YfNi6-wnCoWKtrgHjm42pmaKJt4
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2019-10-13
review-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09-secdir-lc-rose-2019-10-13-00
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.

I marked this "ready with nits" because I see no serious security or privacy
considerations, but I'm confused by the wording in section 7, which begins:

q( This section will provide some recommendations about the usage and
combinations of the multicast enhancements described in Section 4 and Section
5. )

and then proceeds to provide little in the way of such recommendations. Maybe
the phrasing here is just awkward?

Nits:

Reference dot11aa
(https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/802.11aa-2012.pdf) gives me a
404. Maybe I simply lack the appropriate decoder ring?

The IETF meeting network is referenced three times in section 5.1. For example,

q( The distribution of users on wireless networks / subnets changes from one
IETF meeting to the next (e.g SSIDs are renamed, some SSIDs lose favor, etc). 
This makes utilization for particular SSIDs difficult to predict ahead of time,
but usage can be monitored as attendees use the different networks. )

This feels like a non-sequitur. Maybe some introductory text about using the
IETF meetings as an exemplar would make this read a little better, but it seems
like the advice to operators here should be generic and not connected to
particular goals for network connectivity at IETF meetings.