Skip to main content

Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
RFC 7939

Yes

Alvaro Retana

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-06-01 for -06)
The introduction in section 1 needs to mention this message: This revision to RFC 6779 is necessitated by the update to RFC 6130 specified in RFC 7466.

Thanks for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06#section-1.1

The MIB doctor review was done by Mike MacFaden.
And the rfcdiff between RFC6779 and this document looks about right.

Finally, keeping https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html in consideration, I believe this work is clearly justified as it updates an existing MIB module.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-06-01 for -06)
I'll wait for the response to Stephen's question as I also noticed the boilerplate wasn't used (SecDir review did too, kinda).

I do appreciate the descriptions provided for the threats associated with the read/write read/create objects.  Thanks for that.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-06-01 for -06)
- My review is based on the diff at [1]

- The security considerations section doesn't seem to
reflect the latest boilerplate. [2] Should it? I'm not
making this a discuss as it's a minor change to a MIB and
I accept that it's arguable that folks might not update
their SNMP security code whilst doing this. But I don't
think I've seen this case before (minor update to MIB
without changed security boilerplate) so maybe the IESG
should chat about it to decide if there's anything to be
done here.

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6779&url2=draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06
   [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)

                            

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -06)