Subject: [manet] Mail regarding draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-metrics-rationale

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:05:15 -0000

Hi,

This I-D just completed IETF last call.
The only discussion was around the Security Directorate review by Steve Kent.
After some debate it became clear that Steve had misconstrued the scope of the
document and, with explanation, he reduced his concern to:

I think the easiest/best fix is for the authors to not use the (almost outlawed)
phrase "This document does not specify any security considerations."

While I don't believe this is a show-stopper, it does tie with one of the
questions I raised in my review and I suspect that the issue will continue to be
raised (e.g. by the Sec ADs). Furthermore, we can do a little better for
posterity.

So I suggest that the entirety of Section 8 be replaced as:

Security issues arising from the inclusion of metrics in OLSRv2 did not get any
specific discussion. Since OLSRv2 has its own security considerations to cover
the whole protocol, there is nothing further to say in this document.

[Or please propose alternative text].

---

Additionally, in his email of 2/26 Chris noted:

> We had intended to put in a comment that if you want a node metric,
> add it to incoming link metrics. I think from the author team I dropped
> the ball on that one.

So there is a small amount of text needed there.

---

I would be happy to do this as an RFC editor note or for you to post a new I-D.

If the former, please send me text. If the latter please post a new version.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:29:58 +0100

I recommend to post new version with advised changes,

AB

On 3/11/13, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>