Hi Authors,
This document is very useful for service providers and operators that are managing their constrained devices. Two cents for authors to consider, 1. in section 3., a section of ‘IPv4/v6 address management’ could be helpful, including the discussion of different types of ip addresses on devices, link-local, global, private, etc.. 2. in Appendix A, any relevant discussion in ‘oneM2M’? Regards, -Hui 2014/1/4 Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) <[email protected]> > Hi Dan, > > thank you for your review and comments. See below. > > Cheers, > Mehmet > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext > Romascanu, Dan > > (Dan) > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:23 PM > > To: Warren Kumari; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-* > > > > Hi, > > > > I do not know if I really should be included in the reviewers count, as > I am a participant > > in the coman work since it started, and my name shows up on the list of > authors, > > although in all sincerity most of the credits go to Mehmet, who hold the > pen for most > > of the time, including this latest wound which split the original > document into two > > separate documents - one for use cases, the other for problem statement > and > > requirements. Anyway, FWIW I obviously believe this work is useful and I > support > > doing it in the OPSAWG. I have a few comments recorded below: > > > > draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases > > > > 1. I do not believe that we can get away with a zero-content security > considerations > > section. The described use cases mention the need to secure information > collected by > > constrained devices, some other (like security cameras) carry > information related to > > personal or public security that needs to be protected by robust > mechanisms. These > > kind of threats need to be mentioned IMO. > > You are right a dummy security considerations section is not sufficient. > Coman was not planning to address security exhaustively. Solace, now ACE, > has > been started where security for constrained devices will be discussed. > We discussed the security requirements in section 3.6 of the problem > statement draft. > > I agree, a discussion of the security threads should be provided in a > security considerations section. > > > draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs > > > > 1. The draft uses the 'adjective' small device in association with > constrained device in a > > few place. I suggest to remove this. There is no automatic association > of a device > > being small implying that it is also constrained. Nor are all > constrained devices small in > > size. > > Agree. We should be more precise with the terminology. > > > 2. We have made an effort in the last few versions and especially in > this one to > > distinguish between the constrained devices and constrained networks, > but the clean-up > > on this issue is not complete. For example section 1.6 still has text > about constrained > > networks - this section and other in which constrained networks are > mentioned should > > be carefully examined to make sure that the focus of the document stays > with > > constrained devices, and that if constrained networks are mentioned at > all this is in the > > context of their relationship with the constrained devices. > > Why strictly devices? We also have requirements discussing the > organization of constrained networks from management pov. in section 3.1. > > > 3. I do not believe that we can get away with a zero-content security > considerations > > section here either. The document even says: > > > > If specific requirements for > > security will be identified, they will be described in future > > versions of this document. > > > > This is not accurate - section 3.6 already speaks about requirments for > security and > > access control, and section 1.6 mentions limitations that would prevent > the > > implementation of strong scryptographic algorythms. The text needs to be > reviewed > > and revised from this perspective. > > I think the "future" is now and the current text in the security > considerations section needs to be replaced. I would suggest to provide a > security considerations section by listing and discussing threads in the > problem statement draft and refer to it from the use cases draft. > Comments? > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Warren > Kumari > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:49 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-* > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Hopefully you all had a good Thanksgiving -- if you are in the US, > > > hopefully you had good turkey, stuffing / whatever. > > > If you are not US based, hopefully you enjoyed the decrease in email > > > volume while everyone recovered form eating too much. :-) > > > > > > One of the action items from Vancouver was for us to call for reviewers > > > for: > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/ > > > and > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-use-cases/ > > > > > > So, can we get some volunteers please? According to our new guidelines > > > we require sufficient reviewers before adopting new work. > > > > > > The documents are (IMO) interesting and easy to read. Constrained > > > devices have some interesting requirements and limitations. > > > If you would like a quick reminder / refresher from the meeting, slides > > > are here: > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/88/slides/slides-88-opsawg-11.pdf > > > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> indicated > > > that one of his Ph.D. students had read the draft a couple of weeks > ago. > > > So they just have to review the changes to the latest version. > > > > > > > > > W > > > -- > > > "I think it would be a good idea." > > > - Mahatma Ghandi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OPSAWG mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
