Reviewer: Sean Turner Review result: Has Issues Hi! Thanks for the well written document. Two issues: # Security considerations While this document is purely about use cases and does not define a protocol per se, I could see why you might think there are no security considerations. So, two things on this: 1. I tend to think that there is at least one security consideration! Don't you to at least have to at least mention the one issue that affects all of the protocols: time synchronization? If I control your clock, I can make this not work or work at times you didn't want it to. There has to be some text you can refer to in NTP? 2. I also went and looked at the security considerations sections in other "pure" use case RFCs. YMMV, but many non-security related use case RFCs included text something like: This document does not specify a mechanism, it merely motivates TVR. Therefore, security considerations are described elsewhere, including in TVR requirements [TVR-REQ] as well as in forthcoming documents for specific routing protocols. Totally not wed to the words above and assumes there will be at least one security consideration related to time. # Possibly an inconsistency. The last para in s1 includes this text: Non-deterministic scenarios such as vehicle-to-vehicle communication is out of the scope of the document. The 1st para of s5.3 includes this text: There are a significant number of mobile node use cases, to include vehicle-to-vehicle communications, swarms of unmanned aerial and underwater vehicles, ships in shipping lanes, airplanes following flight plans, and trains and subways. I was surprised to see “vehicle-to-vehicle” in s5.3 if that’s out of scope. But, it also made me wonder what is a deterministic scenario and if putting vehicle-to-vehicle in s5.3 make the entire exemplar (and section) out of scope. Can you explain? -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
