Subject: [karp] tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-karp-threats-reqs-03

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:58:46 -0700

Hello folks,

I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area
directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
are copied to the document's authors for their information and to
allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider
this review together with any other last-call comments they
receive. Please always CC [email-masked] if you reply to or forward
this review.

Transport Issues:

I had some difficulties to grasp the objective of the document,
however, I believe it's

   This document does not contain protocol specifications.  Instead, it
   defines the areas where protocol specification work is needed and
   sets a direction, a set of requirements, and a relative priority for
   addressing that specification work.

as it is stated in Section 1.3.
Along with this context, I can understand section 2 and 3 are written
for this purpose. Also, I think there is no specific transport layer
concern in this document since there's no detailed discussion for
protocol specs.
However, if my presumption on the objective of the document is right,
I think the title of this draft might not be appropriate. It would be
something like "The Goal and Requirements for Cryptographic Authentication
of Routing Protocols' Transports" or "The Requirements for Cryptographic
Authentication of Routing Protocols' Transports". Because there is not
threat analysis in the document. Also, abstract will need to be updated.

Other minor comments:

As stated above, I have some difficulties to read this document. I think
this is likely because I'm not an expected audience for the document.
However, if you think some of the following points are also reasonable
for some expected audience, please consider updating.

1: I prefer that the objective of the draft is articulated at the beginning
   of the document. It will be very helpful to read the rest of the document.

2: I think it would be better to separate the introduction of this draft
   and KARP project. For example, it is a bit confusing for me to understand
   the focus of this draft since it is mixed with the focus of the KARP
   in Section 1.3.
   I think Section 1.1, 1.2 and 1.7 can be put in the introduction of
   this draft and 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 can be put in another section which
   describes the overview of KARP.

3: I think it depends on the objective of the draft, but I feel some texts
   in Section 1 is not necessary for this draft. For example, I'm not very
   sure the audience of this doc need to read Section 1.4.
   Also, Section 1.5 seems to be too long.

   There are also many mentions about roadmap in this draft, but I'm not
   very sure these are necessary since this is not a roadmap document.
   (Hence, I don't understand the meaning of "this roadmap document". )

4: Section 3 only describes the requirement for Phase 1.
   Will be there another document for Phase 2 or we don't need it?

5: 24 requirements seems to be too many to check easily.
   I think it would be better to categorize them in some ways.
   (priority? protocols? approach?)

Thanks,
--
Yoshifumi Nishida
[email-masked]