Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-10-14
Requested 2019-09-30
Authors Charles Perkins, Mike McBride, Dorothy Stanley, Warren Kumari, Juan-Carlos Zúñiga
Draft 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
Opsdir Telechat review of -11 by Dan Romascanu
Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by Gorry Fairhurst
Assignment Reviewer Kyle Rose
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-09-secdir-lc-rose-2019-10-13
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-10-13


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.

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?


Reference dot11aa ( 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.