Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-of0-
review-ietf-roll-of0-secdir-lc-atkins-2011-08-14-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-roll-of0 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 20) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2011-08-09 | |
| Requested | 2011-06-23 | |
| Authors | Pascal Thubert | |
| Draft last updated | 2011-08-14 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by
Derek Atkins
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Derek Atkins |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-roll-of0-secdir-lc-atkins-2011-08-14
|
|
| Completed | 2011-08-14 |
review-ietf-roll-of0-secdir-lc-atkins-2011-08-14-00
Hi,
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.
The Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)
specification defines a generic Distance Vector protocol that is
adapted to a variety of networks types by the application of specific
Objective Functions. An Objective Function defines how a RPL node
selects and optimizes routes within a RPL Instance based on the
information objects available. This document specifies a basic
Objective Function that relies only on the objects that are defined
in RPL and does not use any extension.
The security considerations section references the same I.D. twice:
described in [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] and [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl]. This
I suspect that the second instance is a typo and instead it should
refer to a different specification?
Beyond that, I see no security issues with this document.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek at ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant