In the interests of moving the document forward more briskly, here are my
comments as responsible AD.
Thanks,
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: manet-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:manet-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
The IESG
Sent: 23 May 2013 23:23
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: manet(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt>
(Security
Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.