Subject: [trill] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:50:05 -0700

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trill-oam-mib/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Melinda Shore did the opsdir review. would like to see the question of
the security considerations setion addressed.

----

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written
with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

Summary:  The document is in good basic shape, with some
weaknesses in the security considerations.  I'd like to
see those remedied but I'm not sure they're serious enough
to recommend blocking publication.

This document specifies a MIB for TRILL.
This document has been received MIB doctor review and
issues raised during that review have been been resolved.

The security considerations section is weak, but not
fatally so.  The draft identifies exposing MAC addresses as a
potential privacy issue but does not identify other security
considerations specific to this particular MIB module, which
is unfortunate given the inclusion of writable objects.  More
specificity about which security mechanisms to use might help
avoid interoperability problems.  Also, in this climate it may
be useful to separate out the privacy issues into a "Privacy
Considerations" subsection.

The nits checker found:
  . two instances of non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
  . a missing reference to CFM.  This one is wrong - CFM
    is identified and a reference provided in the Introduction
    (section 1)

Melinda