Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
The IETF Last Call has finished after 06.06.13 and now you request discussions. I think only IESG can call for discussions not editors. On 6/10/13, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote: We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment from Adrian during IETF LC (which we wanted to address in the previous revision, but forgot about it). We added a new section that can trigger future work, as requested by Adrian. I don't see that Adrian requested a future work section, could you refer to his input for that or was that private request. May be comments in last call made you think to add missing information as future. What is the reason for future work in this informational draft? To the WG: Obviously, the new text is up for discussion if anyone has any issues with it. Is that a new text or new idea? if I don't know what the Editors discussed privately (outside IETF) how can I discuss inside IETF? However, I will not review any more for this draft because it has special policy for refering to contributions. AB Best regards Ulrich On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
RE: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment from Adrian during IETF LC (which we wanted to address in the previous revision, but forgot about it). We added a new section that can trigger future work, as requested by Adrian. I don't see that Adrian requested a future work section, could you refer to his input for that or was that private request. May be comments in last call made you think to add missing information as future. What is the reason for future work in this informational draft? Abdussalam, Look and ye shall see. Seek and ye shall find. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15423.html 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. Adrian
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment from Adrian during IETF LC (which we wanted to address in the previous revision, but forgot about it). We added a new section that can trigger future work, as requested by Adrian. To the WG: Obviously, the new text is up for discussion if anyone has any issues with it. Best regards Ulrich On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:06/06/2013 Reviewer Comment A3: Use Cases not considered and the Information Bases Threats. +++ *Use-cases threats* Reading the RFC6130 applicability section 3, the I-D does not consider all the use-cases included in the that section 3. AB Does the use-case of NHDP [RFC6130] add any value to the threats, or the I-D assumes only one use case which is OLSRv2 network. The NHDP uses RFC5444 packets and RFC5444 messages, so what are the threats to NHDP use for each? not mentioned in I-D. RFC6130 NHDP Can use relevant link-layer information if it is available. AB is there any threat from that use-case? not mentioned in the I-D. *Information bases threats* RFC6130 Appendix F This appendix illustrates various examples of physical topologies, as well as how these are logically recorded by NHDP from the point of view of the router A. This representation is a composite of information that would be contained within A’s various Information Bases after NHDP has been running for sufficiently long time for the state to converge. AB Why the logically recording of the NHDP for all the examples not mentioned in the I-D and were not threat analysed? If there is similar level of threats related to all exampels in RFC6130, then please mention that. This is my last message, thanks. Regards AB
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
AB, while the IETF LC has already ended, I will reply to your comments below: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:06/06/2013 Reviewer Comment A3: Use Cases not considered and the Information Bases Threats. +++ *Use-cases threats* Reading the RFC6130 applicability section 3, the I-D does not consider all the use-cases included in the that section 3. AB Does the use-case of NHDP [RFC6130] add any value to the threats, or the I-D assumes only one use case which is OLSRv2 network. I don't understand the question. The use case is a MANET running NHDP. Section 5 in addition outlines consequences of security threats to NHDP for protocols using the information from NHDP. The NHDP uses RFC5444 packets and RFC5444 messages, so what are the threats to NHDP use for each? not mentioned in I-D. I don't understand the question. There is no danger from a message or packet itself; they may contain information that has either been legitimately tampered with or that is wrong because of misconfiguration. And these are the cases we have described. RFC6130 NHDP Can use relevant link-layer information if it is available. AB is there any threat from that use-case? not mentioned in the I-D. After discussion on the MANET mailing list, this was already added in section 4.8 (even though the link quality itself is not a normative part of RFC6130, the authors agreed to add that section). *Information bases threats* RFC6130 Appendix F This appendix illustrates various examples of physical topologies, as well as how these are logically recorded by NHDP from the point of view of the router A. This representation is a composite of information that would be contained within A’s various Information Bases after NHDP has been running for sufficiently long time for the state to converge. AB Why the logically recording of the NHDP for all the examples not mentioned in the I-D and were not threat analysed? If there is similar level of threats related to all exampels in RFC6130, then please mention that. I don't understand the question. The example in RFC6130 simply illustrates how NHDP would perceive and store several sample topologies. How would that represent a level of threat? The I-D describes several security threats and explains in which situations these could occur (and what effect it would have). That could happen in an infinite amount of different topologies, so it is impossible (and useless) to list all topologies where such attacks could occur. Best regards Ulrich
RE: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
I find it somewhat disruptive that this email raises new questions on a draft authored in a working group in which you participate, and that it has arrived after the end of IETF last call. I see a series of questions in this message, but no suggested textual changes. I therefore conclude that you are requesting no changes and none shall be made. Thank you. Adrian Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:06/06/2013 Reviewer Comment A3: Use Cases not considered and the Information Bases Threats. +++ *Use-cases threats*
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
I received an IESG message asking my comments so I gave it, regard to your comments below, the reply is that I refer to missing information needed in the I-D, so the reveiw suggests that there is something missing. Did not suggested text because I know that it most probably not be considered. The Last call ends by 06.06.2013 so I still am in this date, not sure why you close, AB On 6/6/13, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: I find it somewhat disruptive that this email raises new questions on a draft authored in a working group in which you participate, and that it has arrived after the end of IETF last call. I see a series of questions in this message, but no suggested textual changes. I therefore conclude that you are requesting no changes and none shall be made. Thank you. Adrian Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:06/06/2013 Reviewer Comment A3: Use Cases not considered and the Information Bases Threats. +++ *Use-cases threats*
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Hi, I think it's OK to add an informative reference to draft-ietf-nhdp-olsrv2-sec, which serves as a pointer to the related work going on, and possible countermeasures to the threats. best Jiazi On Jun 3, 2013, at 07:35 , Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote: Hi Adrian, I personally agree that adding an informational ref to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my co-authors. Thanks Ulrich On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi Abdussalam, I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward reference to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently specified, it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in progress that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats described in this document. I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the situation with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been completed. Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 and it would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being made to address this document. Thanks, Adrian I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this I-D. [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
I would hope that IETF add my name in the acknowledgement section of the I-D. I complained to AD about that my efforts in WGLC was not acknowledged by editors even after my request, however, I did not stop reviewing (trying not be discouraged) which I will complete on 6 June with the final comments. Therefore, this message (can be added as a comment on the I-D) is an objection to section 8 that ignores acknowledge input/review effort related to the I-D. AB On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote: Hi Adrian, I personally agree that adding an informational ref to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my co-authors. Thanks Ulrich On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi Abdussalam, I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward reference to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently specified, it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in progress that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats described in this document. I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the situation with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been completed. Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 and it would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being made to address this document. Thanks, Adrian I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this I-D. [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02
RE: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Hi Abdussalam, I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward reference to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently specified, it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in progress that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats described in this document. I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the situation with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been completed. Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 and it would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being made to address this document. Thanks, Adrian I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this I-D. [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Hi Adrian My comments below, On 6/2/13, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: Hi Abdussalam, I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward reference to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently specified, it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in progress that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats described in this document. So I understand you agree with my suggestion on this I-D to referencing/refering to that draft [1]. I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the situation with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been completed. I think the work completes when the WG submits to AD, but reviews not completed. IMHO, the draft/work [1] is completed from WGLC, and now is at AD review. Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 and it would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being made to address this document. I suggest the I-D referencing. I do not think I suggested way of reviews, but that other satetment was my opinion/beleive or advise to community of such reveiw for output quality. I don't understand why you think it was wrong way of review, after you agreed to reference such document (usually my reviewing reviews all references as well). Regards AB I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this I-D. [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Hi Adrian, I personally agree that adding an informational ref to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec is a good idea. I will discuss with my co-authors. Thanks Ulrich On Sunday, June 2, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi Abdussalam, I think it is a reasonable suggestion for this I-D to make a forward reference to draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec Although this work is clearly scoped to NHDP (RFC 6130) as currently specified, it is worth an informational reference to note that there is work in progress that seeks to update NHDP to counter a number of security threats described in this document. I do not think, however, that this I-D should attempt to describe the situation with NHDP after the inclusion of protocol work that has not yet been completed. Contrary to your suggestion, I think this I-D motivates updates to 6130 and it would be wrong to review this document in the context of changes being made to address this document. Thanks, Adrian I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this I-D. [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Continue Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:02/06/2013 Reviewed I-D: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03 Reviewer Comment A2: Referencing the NHDP and related to RFC6130 ++ I think if we got an effort in IETF to update NHDP [RFC6130] as draft [1] does, why this reviewed I-D of threats does not include [1] in its references to be reviewed before reviewing this NHDP-threat I-D? I suggest to include draft [1] in References section, IMHO, any updates to RFC6130 should be considered by the community while reviewing this I-D. [1] draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-sec-02 AB On 5/24/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Hi, I think those comments have been addressed/answered in my previous reply http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15274.html I didn't see the support of your comments from other WG participants. best Jiazi 2013/5/27 Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:27/05/2013 Reviewer Comment A1: Previous comments in WGLC +++ Related to your request below please read my previous review comments [1] and I will continue with additional messages/comments. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15254.html Regards AB On 5/24/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:27/05/2013 Reviewer Comment A1: Previous comments in WGLC +++ Related to your request below please read my previous review comments [1] and I will continue with additional messages/comments. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15254.html Regards AB On 5/24/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
Hi, Reviews at this stage don't need supports from WG when it is in the IETF Last Call, the comments are sent as per request of iesg. AB On 5/27/13, Jiazi YI yi.ji...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I think those comments have been addressed/answered in my previous reply http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15274.html I didn't see the support of your comments from other WG participants. best Jiazi 2013/5/27 Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com Reply to your request dated 24/05/2013 Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB)Dated:27/05/2013 Reviewer Comment A1: Previous comments in WGLC +++ Related to your request below please read my previous review comments [1] and I will continue with additional messages/comments. [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15254.html Regards AB On 5/24/13, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
On 5/27/13, Jiazi YI yi.ji...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I think those comments have been addressed/answered in my previous reply http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15274.html I didn't see the support of your comments from other WG participants. I also didn't see objection of my comments from the WG. I also didn't see support of your reply from the WG. (WG decisions are WG-rough-consensus, not the editors opinion). If there was WG objection then I will report that in my reviews to IESG as information. AB
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
On 5/27/13 10:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I also didn't see objection of my comments from the WG. I also didn't see support of your reply from the WG. (WG decisions are WG-rough-consensus, not the editors opinion). Chairs call consensus.
