Skip to main content

Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol
draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-07

Yes

(Alvaro Retana)

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -05) Unknown

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-06-01 for -06) Unknown
The introduction in section 1 needs to mention this message: This revision to RFC 6779 is necessitated by the update to RFC 6130 specified in RFC 7466.

Thanks for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06#section-1.1

The MIB doctor review was done by Mike MacFaden.
And the rfcdiff between RFC6779 and this document looks about right.

Finally, keeping https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html in consideration, I believe this work is clearly justified as it updates an existing MIB module.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-06-01 for -06) Unknown
I'll wait for the response to Stephen's question as I also noticed the boilerplate wasn't used (SecDir review did too, kinda).

I do appreciate the descriptions provided for the threats associated with the read/write read/create objects.  Thanks for that.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-06-01 for -06) Unknown
- My review is based on the diff at [1]

- The security considerations section doesn't seem to
reflect the latest boilerplate. [2] Should it? I'm not
making this a discuss as it's a minor change to a MIB and
I accept that it's arguable that folks might not update
their SNMP security code whilst doing this. But I don't
think I've seen this case before (minor update to MIB
without changed security boilerplate) so maybe the IESG
should chat about it to decide if there's anything to be
done here.

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6779&url2=draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-06
   [2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown

                            
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -06) Unknown