Hiya, I re-read babel-profile-03 and have a few comments (below) offered as a WG participant (i.e. chair hat off) as part of WGLC.
If any of these were discussed already, then just pointing me at the archive is a fine answer. (And apologies for not having been active in the WG earlier if there are such cases.) - Req5: Is "MUST be... of a similar magnitude..." clear enough? - 2.2: I'm not sure this entire section is useful. If there is something specific we'd like to avoid (at a MUST NOT or NOT RECOMMENDED level), it'd be better to say exactly what. - NR2: I don't see the point of that. If - section 3: "...using the existing redistribution mechanisms" could maybe do with a reference for seme well known OS. - NR3: I don't see what is not required here, that seems like a straightforward 2119 MAY statement - section 4: "only susceptible" seems like overstatment. If babel picks up routes from the OS and then annouces those, then it seems the statement is not true, as any way of getting a route into the OS will cause babel to propogate that, or am I wrong? If not, then the babel profile seems to be susceptible to any problems that cause a dodgy route to be installed in the OS kernel. - section 4: "secured at a lower layer" includes links with no security (in reality), is that right? - section 4: "trusted X" is not a good term unless you say who/what is trusting whom/what for what. So, s/trusted links/links/ would be better. - section 4: The security properties here seem to be directly and wholly dependent on nodes being able to safely identify interfaces into the categories in 5.1 of 7788. I need to do some more reading to convince myself that that's a good thing to assume. If there are weaknesses in that assumption, then it'd be better to call those out here, as that'd help folks who're implementing and might also help in the later process for this draft. (IOW, I won't be the only one to ask, so we might as well be up-front if there are weak points in that argument;-) - section 4: I dislike the plan of assuming lower layer security but if that's the WG consensus, then that's what it is. Is there a link to the discussion that concluded that in the WG archive? I suspect we'll be asked by directorate reviewers/IESG so good to have that now. If there's no such link, then we probably should start a specific thread that ends with that conclusion (or changes the draft.) Cheers, S.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
