Dear Robert Sparks. Regarding the 6lo use cases draft, thanks for your valuable comments.
We updated the 6lo use cases draft to resolve your comment of Security Considerations. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14.html#name-security-considerations-8 It is appreciated to review the updated Security Consideration section. Best regards Yong-Geun. 2022년 7월 13일 (수) 오전 12:01, Robert Sparks <rjspa...@nostrum.com>님이 작성: > > On 7/11/22 8:16 PM, Yong-Geun Hong wrote: > > > Dear Robert Sparks. > > First, thanks for your valuable review and comments of the 6lo use cases > draft. > Second, sorry for the late reply. I have acknowledged your email but due > to other business, I lost the chance to reply immediately. > > During the update of this draft, I tried to resolve your comments in the > revision. > The following are my responses for your comments. > > 1. Update the section of Security Considerations > As you mentioned, it seems that the use cases draft does not have > close relation with security issues but it has several parts which are > related to security issues in the main body. > As you recommend, I added the summary texts in the section of Security > Considerations. > > I don't think the addition is sufficient. As written it's almost cryptic. > This section should say _why_ L2 security is required, and what the threats > are if it is not provided. > > > 2. Handling of Appendix A > In old versions of this draft, the content in Appendix A is located in > the main body. During progressing this draft and resolving the comments, it > was moved to Appendix A. > At the IETF 114, I would ask for directions and decide how to proceed. > > > 3. Misuse of technology description and marketing words > As you pointed, the draft has some parts which are recognized as > marketing words. Because we invited some experts who are involved in the > specific area, some marketing words could be included. > I tried to change the marketing words to technology words in the revision. > > You could find the revised version of this draft in here : > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases > > Once again, thanks for your review and comments > > Best regards. > > Yong-Geun. > > 2022년 4월 6일 (수) 오전 6:09, Robert Sparks <rjspa...@nostrum.com>님이 작성: > >> Apologies, there's an edit-buffer glitch below, corrected in what's >> uploaded at >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-use-cases-12-secdir-lc-sparks-2022-04-05/ >> . >> >> On 4/5/22 4:04 PM, Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote: >> > Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> > Review result: Has Issues >> > >> > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's >> ongoing >> > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These >> comments >> > were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. >> Document >> > editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other >> last call >> > comments. >> > >> > This document has issues to address before publication as an >> Informational RFC >> > >> > Issues: >> > >> > >From the abstract: "The document targets an audience who would like to >> > understand and evaluate running end-to-end IPv6 over the constrained >> node >> > networks for local or Internet connectivity." >> > >> > Its security considerations section claims "Security considerations are >> not >> > directly applicable to this document". Yet the text of the draft has >> several >> > places that rightly call out thing like "there exist implications for >> privacy", >> > "privacy also becomes a serious issue", and "the assumption is that L2 >> security >> > must be present." A summary of these things in the security >> considerations >> > section seems prudent. At _least_ call out again the assumption about L2 >> > security. >> > >> > The "Security Requirement"A summary of these things in the security >> > considerations section seems prudent. At _least_ call out again the >> assumption >> > about L2 security. >> > >> > The "Security Requirement" row in Table 2 is not well explained. The >> values in >> > that row are explained at all. (For instance, the word "Partially" >> appears >> > exactly once in the document - it is unclear what it means). >> > >> > Nits/Comments: >> > >> > Appendix A is neither introduced nor referenced from the body of the >> document. >> > Why is it here? >> > >> > I'm a little concerned about some of the technology descriptions >> possibly >> > moving beyond simple facts into interpretation or even marketing. The >> last >> > paragraph of section 2.5 is a particularly strong example. Look for >> phrases >> > section 4 that include "targets" or "targeted by" and make sure that's >> what the >> > organizations ins that define those technologies say (consider >> references). >> > >> > At 'superior "range"', why is range in quotes? Think about >> restructuring the >> > sentences that use 'superior' to avoid the connotation of "better >> than". All >> > this document really needs to acknowledge is "goes further". >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > secdir mailing list >> > sec...@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir >> > wiki: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/sec/wiki/SecDirReview >> >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
