Hello Chris,
Thanks for your review of this document. Your email somehow eluded my
attention until today, please excuse the delay.
Follow-up below...
On 5/26/2016 9:27 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
I haven’t yet found time to read this (I’m still hoping to before
indicated date).
But one thing immediately jumps out.
The document references the four Experimental protocols produced by
the MANET WG. It references a draft produced for OSPF. From
recollection, there were three separate drafts produced for OSPF, all
of which became Experimental RFCs. But two are not referred to.
I found the following:
OSPF (<xref target="RFC5449"/>, <xref target="RFC5820"/> and <xref
target="RFC7137"/>)
If there are others please let me know.
But there is also a Proposed Standard MANET routing protocol, OLSRv2,
RFC 7181.
Fixed.
There are of course many other protocols; the only other one that I’m
aware of and might need mentioning (here I need to read the draft) is
NHDP (RFC 6130). This can be viewed as the neighbourhood discovery
part of OLSRv2, but is specified as a separate protocol. Some of this
paper is about neighbours, and possibly it may be appropriate to
reference RFC 6130, but also possibly it might not. (I’m an author of
that RFC too.)
While posting, but nits, two other things jumped out at me. One is the
white space on page 6.
Fixed!
The other (since I was looking at references) is the rather odd
reference DoD01 with two authors, then a title, then an editor. Of
course the RFC Editor would in due course change this to whatever is
approved style, but might as well get it closer.
And now, looking at my records, I see I have already made (and since
forgotten) my main comment (though I didn’t then discuss the OSPF
situation) in January, and nothing was done, though there was an
indication it should be then. I don’t think this should have proceeded
to WGLC with that unaddressed.
I'll try to go find that comment, but in case I don't find it please
note that we have made a good bit more discussion about security in
Section 5.
That trip into records indicated there was a comment then (not from
me) about the security considerations section. It’s worth noting that
there’s a security framework for OLSRv2, and other protocols to use
the manet part/protocol (as specified in RFC 5498) in RFC 7182.
This document isn't really about securing multi-hop communications
routing protocols, but instead it is about certain characteristics of
the underlying medium over which such protocols run. Do you think there
is something particular about the security considerations in RFC 7182
that has to do with asymmetry, non-transitivity, or time variance? If
so I would be happy to indicate that in the document and cite the
relevant material. Or, if there is a relevant discussion about MitM
attacks, that could merit a specific citation.
Regards,
Charlie P.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
