Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.1 REQ5: a Homenet implementation of Babel MUST use metrics that are of a similar magnitude to the values suggested in Appendix A of RFC 6126bis. "MUST" and "similar magnitude" are not a great pairing. I agree with the secdir reviewer that the link classification is important, and would suggest a that SHOULD become MUST for "if it is unable to determine whether a link is wired or wireless, it MUST make the worst-case hypothesis". Section 4 I always worry a little bit about the ability to classify links as "trusted", but there are probably cases where it's valid to do so. (Whether there are enough cases where it's valid to do so that would provide enough use cases for this document perhaps will need to wait for deployment experience.) I do wonder whether it's worth enumerating the "upper-layer security protocol"s that HNCP and Babel support, as there are tradeoffs among the PSK/PKI/TOFU options that the implementor may need to consider. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
