|
I reviewed the document draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt in
general and for its operational impact. Operations directorate reviews are solicited primarily to help
the area directors improve their efficiency, particularly when preparing
for IESG telechats, and allowing them to focus on documents requiring
their attention and spend less time on the trouble-free ones. Improving the documents is important, but clearly a secondary
purpose. A third purpose is to broaden the OpsDir reviewers' exposure to
work going on in other parts of the IETF. Reviews from OpsDir members do not in and of themselves cause
the IESG to raise issue with a document. The reviews may, however, convince
individual IESG members to raise concern over a particular document
requiring further discussion. The reviews, particularly those conducted in last
call and earlier, may also help the document editors improve their
documents. -- Review Summary: Intended status: Proposed Standard This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the
Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) protocol. Is the document readable? Yes. Does it contain nits? idnits 2.12.01 tmp/draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt: tmp/draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt(532): Line has weird spacing:
'...patcher v ...' Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF
Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b
License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer
Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work,
but was first submitted on or after 10 November
2008. Does it really need the disclaimer? Checking references for intended status: Proposed
Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information
about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?):
RFC 4366 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246) Summary: 0 errors (**), 1 warning (==),
2 comments (--). Is the document class appropriate? Yes. Is the problem well stated? Yes. Is the problem really a problem? Yes. Does the document consider existing solutions? The ISMS WG has considered approaches other than (D)TLS, such as
SSH. Does the solution break existing technology? No. Does the solution preclude future activity? No. Is the solution sufficiently configurable? Yes. Section 7 defines a MIB for the TLS transport model
which supports configuration. Can performance be measured? How? The MIB defined in Section 7 should enable monitoring of aspects
of TLS transport model performance. Does the solution scale well? (D)TLS should scale well as long as the server has a session
cache of sufficient size. Is Security Management discussed? The entire document is about security management. From: Tina TSOU
[mailto:tena@xxxxxxxxxx] Hello, As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being
asked to review the following IESG work item for it's operational impact. IETF Last Call: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-09.txt Please provide comments and review to the Ops-dir
mailing list (ops-dir@xxxxxxxx) before the next IESG
telechat, and include the authors of the draft as well. The IESG telechat agenda is below, you could find the exact date,
i.e. the expected deadline for the feedback of your review. https://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/ For a list of questions to be
answered in an OPS-DIR review see Appendix A in RFC 5706.
Note that not all questions may apply to all documents, and some other items
may be identified by the OPS-DIR reviews. The status
of Operations Directorate Review could be found http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/Directorates You
could wiki it when you finish the review. Thank you, Tina http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf