In the interests of moving the document forward more briskly, here are my comments as responsible AD.
Thanks, Adrian --- I know it is not the intent of this document to propose solutions or mitigations to any of the threats described. However, I think two things would be useful: 1. Please add a statement of exactly this point to the Abstract and to the end of the Introduction. 2. Please consider adding a short section that may drive new work by suggesting which threats need to be addressed in new protocol work, which in deployment, and which by applications. --- The assumption stated in the Introduction... This document is based on the assumption that no additional security mechanism (such as IPsec) is used in the IP layer. ...is perfectly fine. You might add a note to explain why this is a reasonable assumption (i.e., it is particularly hard to configure security associations in this type of network) and you might also add a note about whether none, some, or all of the threats would go away if this problem could be resolved. > -----Original Message----- > From: manet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:manet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > The IESG > Sent: 23 May 2013 23:23 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: ma...@ietf.org > Subject: [manet] Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> (Security > Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG > (manet) to consider the following document: > - 'Security Threats for NHDP' > <draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
