Early Review of draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template-01
|Requested revision||No specific revision (document currently at 02)|
|Team||Security Area Directorate (secdir)|
|Draft last updated||2013-02-21|
Secdir Early review of -01
by Dan Harkins
|Reviewed revision||01 (document currently at 02)|
Hello, 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. Boilerplate aside, I hope that this document is not being processed by the IESG because I don't think it's suitable for publishing even as an Informational RFC (it's intended status). It seems to have the right sections to properly articulate the ROLL Applicability Statement but there is no content there so it is not suitable for any purpose as a stand-alone document and it's not really possible to review it. This seems more like an internal placeholder document for the ROLL WG to work on as a precursor to producing a real applicability statement and not the kind of document that the IETF normally produces, and that the Security Area Directorate normally reviews. Some suggestions for improving this template so some other draft that would be suitable for advancement could be written: - Instead of "Hello", I think the content of "1. Introduction" should be a description of what the applicability statement will be and what it's for, that way this text can just be copied into the real applicability statement. It seems like a template should provide this information. - Make a 1.2 for terminology and put "RPL" and "trickle" there along with some other ROLL-related terms. - there are probably different security considerations for P2P and P2MP communication, probably split those out in section 6 so the applicability statement addresses them. - 4.2.1 should be "Services Provided at Layer 2" or something general like that. If you need an expert that might be better noted as a parenthetical comment for 4.2. regards, Dan.