Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2016-01-18
Requested 2016-01-07
Authors Johannes Merkle , Manfred Lochter
I-D last updated 2016-02-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Will (Shucheng) LIU (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 05)
Result Has nits
Completed 2016-02-04
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

I think this document is pretty much Ready with nits. It is a
replacement for RFC 7630 with the only change being, apparently, that
the MIB MODULE-IDENTITY was incorrect in 7630.

The Security Considerations Section looks good.


The Abstract does not mention that this document obsoletes RFC 7630. I
think it is a good practice to include that in the Abstract.

The first paragraph of the Introduction seems odd to me It says
   "This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
   for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines
   additional authentication protocols ..."
While I can't actually say this is actually wrong, the portion of the
MIB it defines is trivial and it seems to me that the meat is in the
specification of the additional authentication protocols. Certainly,
those authentication protocol specifications don't appear in the MIB
portion specified, only identifiers for them. Yet the wording of the
Introduction (... defines a portion of the ... MIB.. In particular,
...) seems to imply that the definition of the additional
authentication protocols is a subpart of the portion of the MIB. So I
would say the Introduction should begin with something like:
   "This document specified additional authentication protocols ... In
addition, it defines a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) containing identifiers for these authentication protocols for
use with network management protocols."

Section 4.2, line 3: suggest replacing "defined" with "specified" so
that "definition" and "defined" don't occur so close to each other. I
think it reads a bit better with that change.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 at