Subject: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:59:48 +0100

Hi,

Thanks for this document which I found readable and comprehensible.

I have done my usual AD review to find issues and concerns that I think
should be resolved before the document advances to IETF last call and
IESG review. 

Since I am not a security weenie^H^H^H^H expert, my comments are sparse.
Therefore I am kicking off IETF last call at once. Please handle my
comments as part of the last call. (I have also sent a heads-up to the
Security ADs that this document definitely needs attention from the 
Security Directorate.)

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

---

I know it is not the intent of this document to propose solutions or
mitigations to any of the threats described. However, I think two things
would be useful:

1. Please add a statement of exactly this point to the Abstract and to
   the end of the Introduction.

2. Please consider adding a short section that may drive new work by
   suggesting which threats need to be addressed in new protocol work,
   which in deployment, and which by applications.

---

The assumption stated in the Introduction...
   This document is based on the assumption that no additional security
   mechanism (such as IPsec) is used in the IP layer.
...is perfectly fine. You might add a note to explain why this is a 
reasonable assumption (i.e., it is particularly hard to configure
security associations in this type of network) and you might also add a
note about whether none, some, or all of the threats would go away if
this problem could be resolved.

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:46:19 -0700

Adrian,

thank you very much for your review. We will address your comments as
part of the IETF LC, like you suggested.

Best regards
Ulrich

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 17:35:11 +0200

On 5/23/13, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> security associations in this type of network)

I mentioned similar concerns in my review at WGLC,

> and you might also add a

This is why I was confused of using the word *common*, but IMO if
clarified as your above request and as in my comments before, then it
will make the I-D reasonable.

AB

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 22:51:19 +0100

Abdussalam,

I am glad that I have captured your concern.
I am sure I didn't notice you raise these issues, but if fixing them helps
resolve your confusion it can only be a good thing.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Abdussalam Baryun
> Sent: 25 May 2013 16:35
> To: manet
> Subject: Re: [manet] AD review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet