Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-indus-routing-reqs-
|Requested revision||No specific revision (document currently at 06)|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||Security Area Directorate (secdir)|
|Authors||Kris Pister , Tom Phinney , Pascal Thubert , Sicco Dwars|
|Draft last updated||2009-05-24|
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by Glen Zorn
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. Grammatical and spelling errors are fairly prevalent; a close check would be beneficial. The page title is hyphenated gobbledygook. The acronym "WSN" is used without previous expansion in section 2.2. In section 2.2.1, s/Form afar/From afar/. There is no "Security Considerations" section. The majority of the references to security have to do with general network or node security, not with the security requirements placed upon the routing protocol itself; this is a serious omission, I think and one that should be rectified before publication. Similarly, a large amount of background information on the operation of industrial plants is given, but little of this information is tied specifically to the routing requirements themselves. In several instances technically extraneous claims are made for the need for some feature, as if these claims were statements of fact. For example, section 8 begins: Various economic factors have contributed to a reduction of trained workers in the plant. The industry as a whole appears to be trying to solve this problem with what is called the "wireless worker". Carrying a PDA or something similar, this worker will be able to accomplish more work in less time than the older, better-trained workers that he or she replaces. There are several other ways in which this could be put (none of them quite as flattering to the corporate bosses) but in any case, irrelevant to the goal of specifying routing requirements. I don't know what an "External Informative Reference" is (section 13.3), nor why one would treat it differently than any other informative reference. ~gwz At one time in the US, in the mid-nineteenth century, working for wage labor was considered not very different from chattel slavery...anyone who thinks it's legitimate to be a wage laborer is internalizing oppression in a way which would have seemed intolerable to people in the mills 150 years ago. -- Noam Chomsky, "Propaganda & the Public Mind"